Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Don't suppose I'll ever get to know anymore??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Don't suppose I'll ever get to know anymore??

    John Boulter & Mary Bane married in 1764 & had 4 children between 1765 and 1777. Another daughter was born in 1783.

    Nothing unusual about that. :o

    I've just been looking through old newspapers and came across a notice in the advert/personal section of the "Norfolk Chronicle" of Sat 5 Dec 1878.
    It's signed by John Boulter, mariner of Great Yarmouth, and states his wife Mary
    has "several times eloped from her husband within the space of twelve months last past (not withstanding his promise to forgive what is past.)"
    He goes on to forbid anyone from harbouring her and states he will not be responsible for any debts she might incur.

    Perhaps this explains the lack of children between 1777 and 1783 (and I'd naively thought he was away at sea on long voyages!)
    There doesn't appear to have been any Mary Boulter death. or a second marriage for John to another Mary.
    But, there must have been a reconciliation - the last child was recognised as John's.
    The couple were together in 1803 when evacuation plans were made for Yarmouth, and John's will (written 1813) made provision for "my wife Mary."

    If I hadn't found that notice, I'd have assumed everything was wonderful. There's nothing else in the papers and I haven't come across any court proceedings, so I don't suppose I'll ever know anymore about it.

    Jay
    Janet in Yorkshire



    Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

  • #2
    How annoying not to know the full details

    Comment


    • #3
      "The couple were together in 1803 when evacuation plans were made for Yarmouth"

      ooh, can you tell me any more about this ? It might explain why my Yarmouth family suddenly turned up on Deptford and how/why Thomas came to be "a prisoner of the French" for 7 years !!

      When I get a chance I will try and read up on it.

      Di
      Diane
      Sydney Australia
      Avatar: Reuben Edward Page and Lilly Mary Anne Dawson

      Comment


      • #4
        Janet

        Maddening, isn't it?! However we need to remember that a wife was the possession of her husband and it was a criminal (?church?) offence to deprive a man of his wife, just as it would be to steal his dog, lol. A woman could be ordered by the Court to return to her husband and anyone who harboured her, even just by employing her maybe, could be imprisoned too.

        So, it wasn't necessarily that she saw the light and returned to her loving husband. More likely she had no alternative. We will never know if she was properly grateful for his magnanimity or whether she looked thoughtfully in the knife drawer from time to time!

        OC

        Comment


        • #5
          Di

          1803 was during the Napoleonic wars and Gt Yarmouth was an important port and also used as a small naval and military base.
          There was felt to be a constant threat of invasion by the French, so plans for counter-action were drawn up accordingly. There was no invasion and no evacuation, but the list is a useful family history source. However, it doesn't include everyone, nor all families.



          LOL, OC!

          Jay
          Janet in Yorkshire



          Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

          Comment


          • #6
            How annoying for you. It is great to uncover this type of information about your ancestors, but the consequence is that you end up wiith a lot more questions.

            I know from reading the article that it looks like the husband is the 'wronged' party, but I would have a little niggle in the back of my head, questioning her side of the story. Could this be a case of a controlling husband, pulling his wfe back in line. We, likely, shall never know.
            Bubblebelle x

            FAMILY INTERESTS: Pitts of Sherborne Gloucs. Deaney (Bucks). Pye of Kent. Randolph of Lydd, Kent. Youell of Norfolk and Suffolk. Howe of Lampton. Carden of Bucks.

            Comment

            Working...
            X