Getting rather desperate, and very confused

[sally]

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the following please.

I have a Mary Elizabeth Wrightson born 1874 in Danby Wiske, Yorkshire, the sister of my grandmother. Neither my 94 year old father nor his 90 year old sister have any recollection of ever hearing her name, even though all the others in the family were freely talked about.
Mary is on the 1891 Census aged 17 still living on the family farm in Manfield, North Yorkshire, and I have her marriage in 1894 when both of them were 21. This is where it starts to become rather odd......... she married Charles Mitchell, a farm labourer (which might explain why she became out of favour as it were with the family, as this would not have gone down very well) in the Registry Office in Ripon, but both she and Charles have put their place of residence as Thornborough, which is about 20 miles from Ripon I think. Six years later, Mary dies and I am awaiting the death certificate.

The thing is, I can find absolutely no trace nor record of Charles Mitchell either before this marriage date, nor afterwards. On the marriage certificate, he gives his father's name as William Mitchell, deceased, also a farm labourer, but I cannot find him either on any of the previous censuses. What on earth could be going on here?

[Uncle John]

I suppose the questions to ask are:

Is there any clue from the names of the marriage witnesses?

Does her father's name and occupation tie up, so that you can be reasonably confident you have found the correct marriage?

Are you sure she didn't die unmarried?

I have a slightly later marriage where the groom appeared from nowhere and disappeared before the next census. This confirmed the family story that he was a bigamist and had probably made up his name and his father's.

[Glen in Tinsel Knickers]

Is the 1874 birth correct via the bmd or just from the census returns? It just seems a bit convenient to be 21 but i'm getting cynical in old age:o

If as you suggest the marriage wasn't quite what the family wanted then that could explain the reasons for the entries. Both the bride and groom appear to have some reason to hide the marriage, perhaps one or both were less than honest when they gave details to the registrar, there was little that could be done to disprove what they said though in fairness Charles may not have known who his father was and simply made up a name to avoid embarrassment. He wouldn't be the first that's for sure.

[maggie_4_7]

Are you absolutely sure that Mary Elizabeth Wrightson born 1874 is the sister of your grandmother?

Born 1874 marries 1894 dies 1900.

Your father at 94 must have been born 1915.

Its not uncommon for people in families not to mention the dead.

Sometimes it seems they're never mentioned again. I have found this in my family history.

I knew my grandmother and she died at quite an old age and had 12 children, one died at 18 months that she never stopped talking about until the day she died.

However, I always thought she was one of six (and I met all my great aunties and great uncle) it turns out since the 1911 census she was one of 16 and we now know she named her eldest son after one of her brothers who died at 5 when she was 11, first name ordinarily John after his father but also her brother and a middle name that seemed to come out of nowhere until recently. Now we know.

My grandmother never stopped talking about her father and mother but she never mentioned her siblings that had died and she knew 6 of them!

So its possible that they never knew because no one ever told them about the people that had died.

[sally]

Mary's credentials are completely honest and accurate because I have her birth certificate - and yes, the father she gives is correct too, but Charles......... well, I have no idea!!

There are no Wrightsons in the witnesses, but there is a Fred Mitchell. I have searched for him too, but so far found nothing to tie in with Charles and his supposed father, William.

Uncle John, you may well be right!! I know that Mary is completely sound in all her details, but Charles was obviously not approved of by the family, and could well have been lying his head off on the marriage cert.

[sally]

Maggie, I totally agree with you, but in this case it is very strange. My grandmother had a brother who was known as the bad boy of the family, and he was disowned by his parents, but granny kept in touch with him, and all her other sisters, and talked about them freely to my Aunt. This Mary is totally unknown to my aunt, and yet I have the proof that she was indeed my grandmother's sister

[maggie_4_7]

Maggie, I totally agree with you, but in this case it is very strange. My grandmother had a brother who was known as the bad boy of the family, and he was disowned by his parents, but granny kept in touch with him, and all her other sisters, and talked about them freely to my Aunt. This Mary is totally unknown to my aunt, and yet I have the proof that she was indeed my grandmother's sister

It is weird but I expect you'll get to the bottom of it. Like I said it may be because she died and no one wanted to talk about her anymore because of sad things or things they didn't want to discuss.

[sally]

You may be right Maggie, but there were other deaths - two babies that died shortly after birth (they were the next two after Mary), and many other tragedies in the family - but Mary seems to be something of a dark secret. I do hope that the death certificate throws some sort of light.

Oooooh, I am imagining murder, suicide, goodness knows what! Whatever, it seems that Charles Mitchell was not what he said he was or who he said he was.

Thank you all for your input on this

[Olde Crone Holden]

When you say you cannot find Charles Mitchell, what exactly do you mean?

There are a number of Charles Mitchells of the rightish-sort of age on the 81 and 91. How have you eliminated them?

OC

[sally]

Yes OC, I have been through them all and none of them fit the bill - either because the father is of a different name, or other such reasons.

Sob.

[sally]

Oh, I forgot to mention that I have them on the 1901 Census, just before Mary's death - they are alone, with no children and she gives no occupation, but he still says that he is a farm labourer

[Olde Crone Holden]

Well, he could be making up his father's name for the sake of respectability, or the name could be a clerical error by the registrar - I have seen this more than once! Also, his age may be out, I never trust those who are "21" when they get married, lol.

What you could do, tedious though it will be, is to make a list of all Charles Mitchells from 1881 onwards and follow them all forwards, seeing where that takes you. You may be able to discard a few on the way, hopefully.

Let's hope the death cert is helpful in some way.

OC

[Jammy Dodger]

Where does Charles give his pob on the 1901, I hadn't thought to look as it was assumed Mary died 1900?

[sally]

Jammy Dodger, Mary died in 1901 (June), just after the Census. I will double check his date of birth, because that's an interesting point, but am almost certain that he gave it as he said on his marriage cert.

OC, I think that you are right, and I will have to rule each one out in that way. There is nothing else for it.

The GRO are being exceptionally speedy at the moment, so I do hope that the death cert will reveal a little more information

[Joan of Archives]

Hi Sally

Have you got the ref for them on the 1901 census at all for us to look at?

Did Mary die in 1900 or after the 1901 census?

What date was your grandmother born, as I agree there seems to be a big age gap of 30 years, I would suggest that Mary could have been the product of a first marriage of your great grandfather? Have you got his marriage cert to your great grandmother (your grandmother's parents' marriage). If she was from a first marriage or even relationship, then she could have been illegitimate so maybe that is why your grandmother never spoke of her, plus the fact she died before she was born. Your grandmother may not have even been told of her existence.

[Jammy Dodger]

I think this is your man, 1901 census gives pob as Richmond

Class: RG11; Piece: 4880; Folio: 4; Page: 1; Line:

[Olde Crone Holden]

Joan

No, grandmother must have been born in the 1800s if she has chiildren who are now in their 90s, but I agree, if she was born in the 1890s then it is looking like a possible second marriage for Sally's great grandfather.

OC

[Jammy Dodger]

Charles' sister Mary born Richmond c.1881 is in an orphanage in 1891

RG12; Piece: 4017; Folio 136; Page 31

[Jammy Dodger]

And Charles is here with his Cousin FRED

RG12; Piece: 4028; Folio 148; Page 7;

[sally]

Sorry everyone, had to leave last night, but will now look at the suggestions, and will be back