View Full Version : Not completely wrong

06-06-11, 11:29
I get the impression there is some nub of truth in this submitted entry to the LDS site, even though someone has had a look for me in the parish register & can't find it.

They've submitted a marriage of a Samuel Hudson & a Mary Watts in Shepshed Leics on 16 Nov 1725.

Can't find anything like it on Ancestry, either, but on Ancestry I have found the marriage of a Samuel Hudson & an Elizabeth Watts at Nottingham St Mary's (Shepshed is just over the border) on 11 Jan 1735....so maybe this is where the confusion has come from/maybe Mary died & Samuel married a relative. (Can't find Mary's death either)

As I've found that several of the Hudsons shuttled between Shepshed & the nearby village of Kingston on Soar, Notts & that a lot of Kingston's records are missing, I'm wondering if the marriage actually took place at Kingston, but someone along the line reckoned it was at Shepshed because they later lived there (can't find Mary's baptism either)

Someone is going to look at the Nottingham marriage of Samuel & Elizabeth Watts marriage to see if Samuel was a widower or if he was living in another parish or if there are any other clues.

Anybody got any other tips ? The Samuel/Mary marriage seems to be too detailed to have been invented completely (famous last words)

06-06-11, 11:45
There is the marriage for Samuel Hudson & Mary Watts on the old familysearch site as an extracted entry.

Male Family


Spouse: MARY WATTS Family
Marriage: 16 NOV 1725 Shepshed, Leicester, England

Extracted marriage record for locality listed in the record. The source records are usually arranged chronologically by the marriage date.


Anne in Carlisle
06-06-11, 12:29
There is quite a good chance of it being right if it is an extracted record. Perhaps it only occurs in the Bishops Transcripts and may have been missed by someone checking the Register?


Mary from Italy
06-06-11, 12:44
It's possible that the banns were read at both churches and the entry in Shepshed relates to the banns, not the actual marriage.

06-06-11, 12:49
It's possible that the banns were read at both churches and the entry in Shepshed relates to the banns, not the actual marriage.
I started to reply in similar way Mary, then realised the two marriage dates are 10 years apart!

06-06-11, 14:11
Thank you....it does look like a genuine one, then. It may still be that the bans were read at Shepshed, but the wedding was at Kingston on Soar. That would explain why I can't find Mary's baptism (if she'd been born at Kingston) & why I can't find any children baptised to the couple before 1734. Assuming this is a genuine marriage, then I think the one in Nottingham must be a coincidence because their son, George (the one I'm descended from) is listed as the son of Samuel & Mary & was born in the 1740s (ie after the Nottingham marriage)