A marriage post 1896 likely in Darlington Durham

[foxyloxy]

Sarah Curson married Thomas Woodend in 29 Dec 1878 Darlington Durham. She was born in Newcastle 1860, he Darlington 1854. He died in 1896 Darlington and she married Richard Harper, he was b in Darlington 1858.

I have them on the 1901( I think as I don't have full access) in St Hildas Darlington along with step children ( Woodend) and in the 1911

Could anyone help find where/when they married

[keldon]

It's certainly Harper on the census return
Source Citation: Class: RG13; Piece: 4619; Folio: 42; Page: 22.

There's a possible Sarah Woodend, Darlington, Durham, Oct-Nov-Dec 1900, Volume 10a page 65, who married either Richard Markham or Thomas Stokoe

[Olde Crone Holden]

Wild card for elimination!

Sarah Woodend to Richard MARKHAM, Dec 1900 Darlington.

OC

[Felix]

Hi

Here they are on the 1901 census:

http://interactive.ancestry.com.au/7814/DURRG13_4619_4622-0089/29322408?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.Ancestry.com.au%2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3d1%26db%3duki

Name:	Sarah Harper
Age:	47
Estimated Birth Year:	abt 1854
Relation:	Wife
Spouse's Name:	Richard Harper
Gender:	Female
Where born:	Newcastle Tyne, Northumberland, England
Civil Parish:	Darlington
Ecclesiastical parish:	St Hilda
County/Island:	Durham
Country:	England

Household Members

Name	Age
Richard Harper	43
Sarah Harper	47
Mary A Woodend	19
Edith Woodend	17
William Woodend	14
Charles Woodend	7
Harry Harper	11

[foxyloxy]

Thank you it is not 'just' me then. Strange thing is I can't find a Richard Harper in previous census that 'fits' him. Wonder if they never married, the MARKHAM was a name used, and it looks like he was previously married with Harry being a Harper although I can't find a Harry Harper on the previous census but can find a Harry Markham aged 1yr in Darlington in 1891

[JudithM]

In 1911 Sarah seems to have reverted to the surname Woodend and be living with sons William and Charles, saying she has been married 32 years. That suggests to me that she didn't marry Richard. RG14PN29533 RG78PN1715 RD543 SD2 ED30 SN153

[foxyloxy]

You are right I didn't think anything of the name she was using in the 1911 now you mention it and 32 years fits very well with her marriage to Thomas Woodend on 29 Dec 1878, (even though Thomas died in 1896)

[JayG]

Darlington's BMD index shows Sarah listed under both Woodend and Curson.

http://www.darlington.gov.uk/Living/Register+Office/RegOfficeSearch.htm

[foxyloxy]

Thanks JayG...but how strange

The first one I know is correct she married Thomas on 29 Dec 1878 his father is George, her father James, she was born in Newcastle, he was born in Darlington. The index details of the second two are the same cert try as I do I can't find her born in Newcastle, I can't find James Curson/Carson and family in the census. I think I found her ageds 17yrs at Holy Trinity Durham in what looks like a school as it has 'students' there is also a servant, plus head and wife, but she is not down as a student or servant and she should be 11years ( but it was only a transcription)

CARSON	Sarah	DCE6/5	257	1878	WOODEND Thomas	Apply for certificate DCE6/5-257 - [new window]
CARSON	Sarah	RO33	186	1900	MARKHAM Richard	Apply for certificate RO33-186 - [new window]
CARSON	Sarah	RO33	186	1900	WOODEND Sarah	Apply for certificate RO33-186 - [new window]

[Felix]

Could this be her birth?

CARSON	Sarah Hill		Newcastle under Lyme	6b	49

I know it's the wrong Newcastle according to their 1881 census record when she's married to Thomas, but it's the only Newcastle I can find. Sorry, can't be more help :(

[Felix]

According to the 1911 census Sarah has said she was born in Darlington so I can see why you're confused. Ancestors never make it easy :(

There's this Carson family with a Sarah, daughter of James, and she's around the right age. On the 1871 census. But she was born in Ashton under Lyne!

http://interactive.ancestry.com.au/7619/CHSRG10_4079_4080-0397/18009458?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.Ancestry.com.au%2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3d1%26db%3duki1871%26rank%3d1%26new%3d1%26MSAV%3d1%26msT%3d1%26gss%3dangs-d%26gsfn%3dsarah%26gsfn_x%3dNN%26gsln%3dcurson%26gsln_x%3dNS_NP_NN%26msbd

[JudithM]

As the 1901 census details would have been copied by the enumerator from the household schedule into his book it's possible the writing on the schedule was poor and he misread Markham as Harper. I suppose if the marriage didn't last she may well have reverted to her previous married name in 1911, or maybe she didn't as I've just realised it looks like her Woodend son filled out and signed the 1911 census form, then Sarah just added her christian name above his in the signature box

[Felix]

Actually, if you run both the surnames together they can even sound rather similar and given different regional accents, you can see how we're having all this fun decades later

[margaretmarch]

Perhaps it was Richard Markham and for some reason known only to him and sarah he changed his name to Harper - no formalities needed just say that my name!

Margaret

[foxyloxy]

Thank you all for you research work and your 'logic'. Family historians really do have 'rats maze' thinking( love it).

I think with this one I will just have to put down what is found in records, plus the contradicting records, along with notes, possiblities.. you are so right Felix "Ancestors never make it easy" there again I think we are the type of people who would get fed up with 'same old same old' very quickly if they did time for a coffee

[Felix]

Enjoy your coffee, you've earned it. ;)

And best of luck