Genealogy Chat

I have to say Ive had a look and I think Kate has something - they do look like a batch of baptisms thrown in. The giveaway is that the slips have 1824-1837 printed on them. Not a year as you do have we a specific marriage. Shame Fuzz.

Aha....Fuzzy - I think maybe it's to do with the spelling of the name...I was using spelling of HARRIET (one T) - are you using two Ts?

Athena, is this from Ancestry? Oooooh getting very frustrated now, every time I put in harriett and 1824 and St George hanover Square I only get one without a spouse!! I have to go out now, but will look in later xxx

Well, as Kate says, Pallots only went round copying and they did make mistakes. I have a Pallots entry which gives the bridegroom as the witness and the witness as the bridegroom. Luckily the truth was in the register! I guess they may have had kids after 1837? In which case the birth cert would be the way to go.

Fuzzy - not sure what we are doing differently...but here's a selection from the list that comes up when I do it: Harriet Tay 1824 St. George Hanover Square View Record Harriet Talbutt?? 1824 St. George Hanover Square View Record Harriet Tadd 1824 St. George Hanover Square View Record Harriet Swinley 1824 St. George Hanover Square View Record Harriet Suttaby 1824 St. George Hanover Square View Record Harriet Studham 1824 St. George Hanover Square View Record Harriet Solly 1824 St. George Hanover Square View Record Harriet Bowls 1824 St. George

Hi Athena, I have just been on Ancestry, the only Harriet I could find without a spouse listed was harriett sumpton 1824 St George Hanover, this is on the Pallots marriage index...Am I doing something different to you? I stopped looking at Harriets when it hit 275, and still the only one I could find without a spouse was Harriett sumpton, please tell me what I am doing different to you x ps Just looked again and only 1 Harriett listed in 1824 in St George hanover all the other in different districts or years

Fuzzy - I wouldn't get too excited about that find...like I said above, I searched on all Harriet's for 1824 St George Hanover Square...there were 58 of them listed - most of them with no spouse mentioned. Sorry to be a killjoy LOL

Anyway, my guess is that some cards have been transcribed by ancestry into Pallot's Marriage Index and it seems Pallot's Baptism Index as well which are not much use and maybe didn't belong in there at all. May not really relate to marriages. I wonder if he did a burial index? Gotta go. Kate.

By the way, Pallot wasn't 'the authorities'! I suppose you could always go and search through the actual parish records and look for the marriage. Kate.

Or maybe some cards fell out of the baptism index and got put in the marriage index by mistake! Kate.

Oooooooooooh Girls are you still about??? I had Have tried again and found a Harriett Sumpton married in 1824 St George Hanover Square, this is the same year and place as the Hogg name. Is this it????? the name of the spouse is blank!!!!

Perhaps that card (Hogg / St. Geo Han Sq 1824-35) was being used as some kind of divider by Pallot but ancestry decided to transcribe it? Kate.

Hi athena and heather, just tried and no go!! bloody hell thought that with a jeremiah it would be a piece of cake! fed up with Johns, Williams and Henrys. Looked on the IGI but no luck!! How weird indeed athena and what a carry on indeed, if it's not the rellies making our lives difficult with lies about their age and whether they are actually married at the time the children are born, it is the blasted authorities taking down one name only......feel better after that rant!! x

I guess they were only human and had lapses! I thought it was worth a try as I once entered a marriage search and came up with the name I wanted, clicked on it and got a completely different couple! So then I searched for the brides name (as they are usually put in twice under groom and under bride). Clicked and got the right couple. Thing is this different couple have now tied in as the parents of the groom. Now, they are not listed in the name search but just appeared from nowhere!

How weird - I just tried that out and it came up with 58 Harriet's married in St George Hanover Square - the vast majority of which had no spouse mentioned. What a strange carry on, eh? What was the point of just recording one persons name on a marriage entry I wonder...

Try just putting Harriet in, just in case it comes up with a matching slip.

Oo-er - yes, that is a strange one! Perhaps they weren't sure who they were marrying LOL Never seen a marriage entry with only one name on it before.

I am looking for the marriage of a Jeremiah Hogg to a Harriett ?, prob around 1824/1825, I found a marriage on Ancestry in the right area, but there is only one name on the slip, that of Hogg and no christian names......any ideas folks?!!