Newsletter – 2nd March 2025
Search the 1921 Census FREE at Ancestry ENDS 9TH MARCH
Irish census searching upgraded
Don’t believe what it says: primary sources can be wrong!
Legal questions related to marriage
Save on Who Do You Think You Are?
The LostCousins newsletter is usually published 2 or 3 times a month. To access the previous issue (dated 25th February) click here; to find earlier articles use the customised Google search between this paragraph and the next (it searches ALL of the newsletters since February 2009, so you don't need to keep copies):
To go to the main LostCousins website click the logo at the top of this newsletter. If you're not already a member, do join - it's FREE, and you'll get an email to alert you whenever there's a new edition of this newsletter available!
Search the 1921 Census FREE at Ancestry ENDS 9TH MARCH
To mark Women’s History Month (and International Women’s Day on Saturday) Ancestry are offering free access to hundreds of millions of records including the 1921 Census of England & Wales.
This census is only available at two sites (the other one is Findmypast) so if you don’t have a subscription to either site this is a great opportunity to add extra detail to the history of your family. No doubt you will have researched your closest relatives when Findmypast offered free access to this census a few months ago, but I’m willing to bet that there are scores of relatives from collateral lines that you’ve yet to look up.
Tip: once the free access period ends you’ll no longer have access to the records EVEN IF you’ve attached them to your Ancestry tree. Make sure that you download the images while you can, and remember, your main tree should always be on your own computer, not online. Online trees are very handy, but there are so many more things that you can do using a proper family tree program – such as splitting trees and joining them together, producing reports, or printing trees.
Please use the link below so that I can see how many members have taken advantage of the offer – who knows what this might lead to in the future?
Other records which are FREE during the week of the offer include the 1911 Census of England & Wales, the outgoing UK & Ireland Ships’ Passenger Lists 1890-1960, and the WW2 Women’s Land Army index cards. It’s easy to see whether a particular dataset is included in the offer – just look at the results of a search, and if most of the information is greyed-out, then I’m afraid it’s NOT included.
Irish census searching upgraded
According the Irish Heritage News, the National Archives of Ireland have launched a new system for accessing the 1901 and 1911 Censuses. You can read more about the changes, as well as updates to the records, here.
Don’t believe what it says: primary sources can be wrong!
There’s an excellent article in the latest (March 2025) issue of the Genealogists’ Magazine, the journal of the Society of Genealogists. Sally Hamblen focuses on an 1820 baptism register entry for James Harris Stephens, the son of Hugh Stephens and his wife Mary (nee Harris).
If you’re an SoG member I’d urge you to read the article, which convincingly demonstrates that the child baptised was neither male nor named James – the infant was in fact Jane Harris Stephens. Whilst this particular baptism took place in the Independent Church in Ilfracombe I don’t believe that’s a factor – I’ve seen plenty of errors in parish registers.
The author of the article carried out an extensive search for any other records referring to a James Harris Stephens: none were found. He certainly isn’t living with Hugh and Mary Stephens in 1841, though nor was Jane – she and her younger sister Mary can be found in Swansea, lodging with the family of a pawnbroker named William Kent:
© Crown Copyright Image reproduced by courtesy of The National Archives, London, England and used by permission of Findmypast
Swansea might seem a long way from Ilfracombe, but by 1851 Jane and her husband Henry Pinder are in Sheffield, much further away:
© Crown Copyright Image reproduced by courtesy of The National Archives, London, England and used by permission of Findmypast
Note that Jane’s place of birth is shown as Ilfracombe, and her age as 31, which tallies perfectly with the baptism entry for ‘James’.
Hugh Stephens is shown as Henry’s father-in-law, which confirms that Jane was his daughter (Mary Stephens is on the next page of the census, shown as mother-in-law).
Going back to Ilfracombe, Sally Hamblen identified 6 baptisms to Hugh and Mary Stephens, all but the first in the Independent Church. The two eldest children were boys, and neither was given a middle name; in my view the fact that James/Jane was given the middle name of Harris supports the theory that the child has been misidentified as male, because it is quite common for the eldest daughter to be given the mother’s maiden name. Incidentally, the fourth child of Hugh and Mary was baptised Edward Reynolds Stephens, Reynolds (or Rennel, or Rennells) being the maiden name of Hugh’s mother.
Sally Hamblen points out that Mary Stephens had a younger sister named Jane (Harris), who died aged 19 in 1813, the year before Hugh & Mary married. It may well be that Hugh and Mary began courting when Mary was still in mourning for her sister: indeed, it’s not impossible that Hugh, who was a cabinet-maker, made Jane’s coffin.
Errors in church registers are quite common because baptisms were not entered into the register at the time. Sometimes they were written up from memory, but more usually from rough notes – it’s hardly surprising that errors were made, and whilst I haven’t attempted to analyse the errors I’ve found, I suspect that some clerics were more likely to make a mistake than others.
My 6G grandfather William Calver was shown as 78 years old when he was buried at Badwell Ash, Suffolk in 1791 so I’m fairly certain he was the William baptised to John Calver and his wife Elizabeth at Stanton All Saints, a mere 4 or 5 miles from Badwell Ash, in 1714.
Whilst I can find a 1711 marriage for a John Calver to Elizabeth Notley in Eye, Suffolk – about 14 miles away –there are no other baptisms to John and Elizabeth in Stanton. However there are 5 baptisms at Stanton All Saints to John Calver and Hester Martin – in 1707, 1711, 1720, 1724 and 1726 – so there’s certainly room for another child in 1714. Did the vicar enter the wrong name for the child’s mother? It wouldn’t be the first time.
I’m currently waiting for the Suffolk registers to go online at Ancestry so that I can carry out a more comprehensive search. I’ve got plenty of other ‘brick walls’ I can be working on in the meantime, so there’s no need to make rash assumptions, tempting though it is to add another generation to my tree.
Over
the past couple of years I’ve made a point of highlighting errors – not only in
parish registers, but also in civil registers. Birth, marriage, and death certificates
may be acceptable as proof in a court of law, but that doesn’t mean that they’re
always correct.
In the last newsletter I appealed for members to send in examples of divorcees who remarried, and I’ve been inundated. I’ll be publishing a full analysis later in the year, but suffice it to say that in the 19th century you wouldn’t necessarily know that the person marrying had been divorced: some described themselves as single, others as widowed – even though their former spouse was still alive.
Professor Probert’s excellent 2015 paperback Divorced, Bigamist, Bereaved? is subtitled ‘the family historian’s guide to marital breakdown, separation, widowhood and remarriage: from 1600 to the 1970s’. If you don’t already have a copy it’s well worth adding it to your bookshelf – at £9.99 it’s a bargain.
Amazon.co.uk Amazon.com Amazon.ca Amazon.com.au
Legal questions related to marriage
Over
one thousand of the members who took part in my annual competition had the opportunity
to hear from Professor Probert last month, when she gave two exclusive presentations
on the topic of bigamy.
Now, you might think: “I don’t have any bigamists in my tree, so that’s not relevant to my research”, but think again. As the title of the talks emphasised, it’s just not about why our ancestors committed bigamy but also why they didn’t. For example, at one time the mandatory penalty for bigamy was death, and though it was later reduced to imprisonment or transportation, it would still have been a considerable disincentive for anyone who might consider committing the offence.
If you were invited to attend either of the two presentations, but weren’t able to make it on the day, you should by now have received an email with a link to the recording.
Although I can’t offer everyone the opportunity to view the talk, I can share with you the answers to some of the interesting questions posed by those who did attend, as well as the answers that Professor Probert gave. But first, a question that I answered myself based on what I’d learned from listening to this presentation as well as others that Professor Probert has given in the past!
Isobel asked: “I have a relative who married in Northern Ireland in 1916 & has 2 children there. Then in 1924 he marries again in London, and settles in Essex. After 6 children, he marries his 2nd wife again in Essex in 1939. Does the marriage in 1939 imply the 1924 marriage was bigamous and that he was trying somehow to rectify that? (not sure when 1st wife died)”
Clearly the fact that they married again was evidence that the 1924 marriage was invalid. However the marriage wouldn’t have legitimated the 6 children because at the time they were born the couple couldn’t have married legally, since the first wife was still alive, and there had been no divorce.
Professor Probert was asked an interesting question about whether a marriage would have been invalidated if through some error the church had not been consecrated. This is her response:
“Before 25 March 1754, there was no risk of a marriage being declared to be void on account of the church not being consecrated, for the simple reason that a marriage did not have to be celebrated in a church at all in order to be valid (although most were). And after 1 November 1823, a marriage was only void if the parties both 'knowingly and wilfully' flouted certain specified requirements. Between those dates, a marriage would be void unless it was celebrated in a church in which banns had been usually published. In 1781 a marriage was held to be void on account of being celebrated in a newly constructed church, but validating legislation was passed to remove the problem.”
Lori had a question about the legitimacy of her grandmother’s children: “Grandmother's 1st marriage had 4 children, she left 1st husband and moved in with a different man in 1903, had 4 children with him, they married in 1925. I cannot find a death record for 1st husband. Is 2nd marriage valid? Are children of 2nd marriage illegitimate?”
“Under the Legitimacy Act 1926 a child would be legitimate if the parents had been free to marry at the time s/he was born and either had married or went on to marry: s1(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where the parents of an illegitimate person marry or have married one another, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, the marriage shall, if the father of the illegitimate person was or is at the date of the marriage domiciled in England or Wales, render that person, if living, legitimate from the commencement of this Act, or from the date of the marriage, whichever last happens. (2) Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born. So the children would only be legitimated if the husband had died before they were born.”
Finally, Cathy asked how likely it was that a bigamist would be prosecuted:
“The likelihood of prosecution depends on when this happened. After WW2 the percentage of bigamies known to the police resulting in a prosecution dropped sharply, from around 75% in 1945 to 50% by 1951, 35% by 1961, and 17% by 1971. The best starting point would be local newspapers (at least those that have been digitised) and then the assizes records at the National Archives.”
There, are of course, divorce records at Ancestry but they only cover the period from 1858-1918 (you’ll find them here).
One
of my favourite fictional genealogists is Morton Farrier, who I discovered back
way back in 2013. If you’re not yet a fan, there’s a chance to pick up the
Kindle version for a measly 99p in the UK – just follow this link, but don’t leave it too long as offers
like this don’t last for ever.
If you’re wavering, this quote from my 2013 review will have you reaching for your mouse:
“I had great difficulty putting it down - not only did I want to know what happened next, I actually cared.”
I’m currently reading the next book in the Jayne Sinclair series: The Salford Sioux was released on Thursday, initially as a Kindle book, but I’m sure a paperback version will follow before too long. I hope to review it in the next issue, but if you don’t want to wait please use the link below so that you can support LostCousins:
Amazon.co.uk Amazon.com Amazon.ca Amazon.com.au
Another
fictional female genealogist is a particular favourite of mine – Lydia Silverstream
has only appeared in three books in 15 years, but wow – what incredible stories,
and what great writing!
Last month the reclusive author DJ Wiseman, creator of the Lydia Silverstream series, spoke for the first time to LostCousins members – we now know that the books and the stories were inspired by his research into his own family tree.
I’ve got permission to share the recording of the interview, which is in a private area of YouTube, with all LostCousins members – you’ll find it here. And if you’re inspired to buy the books, and I hope you will be, please use the link below:
Amazon.co.uk Amazon.com Amazon.ca Amazon.com.au
Save on Who Do You Think You Are?
There’s a new Who Do You Think You Are? offer for 2025: readers in the UK can get a year’s subscription (13 issues) for just £34.12 – equivalent to £2.62 an issue, less than half the cover price, when you use this link.
I couldn’t resist linking to this BBC article, about a 100 year-old lady in Witney, Oxfordshire who reckons that a happy family is the key to a long life. At 100 Dorothy Howard still lives on her own and cooks for herself, though she is considering getting a cleaner.
Well done, Dorothy – you are an inspiration to all of us!
This is where any major updates and corrections will be highlighted - if you think you've spotted an error first reload the newsletter (press Ctrl-F5) then check again before writing to me, in case someone else has beaten you to it......
Peter Calver
Founder, LostCousins
© Copyright 2025 Peter Calver
Please do NOT copy or republish any part of this newsletter without permission - which is only granted in the most exceptional circumstances. However, you MAY link to this newsletter or any article in it without asking for permission - though why not invite other family historians to join LostCousins instead, since standard membership (which includes the newsletter), is FREE?
Many of the links in this newsletter and elsewhere on the website are affiliate links – if you make a purchase after clicking a link you may be supporting LostCousins (though this depends on your choice of browser, the settings in your browser, and any browser extensions that are installed). Thanks for your support!