Mary Gertrude PARRY - but could be EVANS

[simone]

Edward Parry 25 stoker
Marriage Date: 30 May 1878
Liverpool, St David
Spouse's Name:Elizabeth Evans , 28
Father's Name:Goodman Parry , bricklayer
Spouse Father's Name:David Evans ,plasterer

1881 census
58 Troughton St Liverpool
RG11; Piece: 3703; Folio: 78; Page: 43
Edward Parry 27 stoker b Ruthin Denbigshire
Elizabeth Parry 32 b Holywell, Flintshire
Anne Parry 2

1891 Edward now a Hotel Proprietor
RG12; Piece: 2918; Folio: 121; Page: 13
Edward Parry 37 b Ruthin
Elizabeth Parry 41 b Wales
Annie Parry 11
Edith Parry 9
Herbert Parry 6
Frederick Wm Stewart 29
Henry H Warren 19
Charles Hayden 19

no sign of Mary G with them

[dickiesam]

Re:

I wasn't sure whether mixed religion marriages were 'tolerated' then - hence I wasn't overly confident about this marriage, but it does look a slim possibility.

See http://www.1837.com/civil-registration/
According to a researcher [whose name escapes me right now, embarrassingly] this was a very common practice even after 1837 when civil registration started.
"Many Catholic couples married at C of E churches. They always baptised their children 'properly' but I think they considered marriage to be as much a legal as a religious requirement. Perhaps it was cheaper and easier to get married at a C of E church. At a Catholic church you would have to obtain a 'certificate' (instead of banns) and then pay both the priest and the registrar. At a C of E church three readings of the banns would suffice plus the vicar acted as the registrar.

Catholic couples marrying elsewhere was considered to be such a problem that the church introduced a new marriage law in 1908 making only marriages at Catholic churches valid. It is after this date that the practice of adding the information about subsequent marriages to the baptism entries were introduced. When the marriage parties applied for their baptism details the priest was meant to add the new information but looking at the registers its obvious that some of them were more efficient than others. The absence of marriage information doesn't mean any particular child didn't marry."

[BarbaraW]

Is there an update to this?

[steveflan]

Barbara - sincerest apologies - thought I'd already provided an update. I went and purchased the marriage certificate between Thomas Christopher Coleridge and Mary Gertrude Parry.

Marriage date was as expected - 13 July 1903

Thomas Christopher is given as a bachelor aged 18 with an occupation of labourer (although I have him as a Dock Labourer). His father, Thomas Coleridge was also given as a Dock Labourer.

Mary Gertrude is given as a spinster aged 20 and no occupation. Her father is Edward Parry, a Porter (but I think he was a dock worker as well).

Interestingly both give their address on the marriage certificate as Ben Johnson Street. However, I've yet to find Mary or Thomas living at Ben Johnson Street in 1901 - although they could well have moved there after 1901.

I was hoping that the witnesses would be of some help, but they are Robert John Thomas and Mary Thomas and I've yet to find any link between any of the Coleridge/Parry families and the name Thomas.

The next step is to get Mary Gertrude's birth certificate, however, based on the details of the marriage certificate I believe that DS's original idea that Mary misheard the registrar and gave her mother's maiden name instead by accident is the most likely. Added to this is the fact that Mary Gertrude is given as a spinster, aged 20 - so although I can't totally rule it out, it would seem that Mary's age and marriage status rule out any previous marriages.

Also, there are a couple of other branches that I've wanted to move forwards on, so Mary's birth certificate is a bit further down on my list of "certificates to purchase"

I noticed I forgot to thank everyone for their inputs as well - so apologies for my tardiness and much delayed thanks.

[BarbaraW]

No worries Steve, I was hoping for a happy ending though.

I have a few on my backburner as I'm sure we all do.

[steveflan]

I know that this was originally raised by me a while back, however, I may have found an answer.

I applied for Mary Gertrude's certificate eventually (but unfortunately before the £6 pdf offer was made public).

Interestingly there is no father mentioned on the birth certificate! I thought I may have jumped the gun on this one as Mary gave Edward Parry as her father on her marriage entry, however, there is an interesting twist and I think I may have the correct certificate after all.

Mary's mother, Elizabeth Parry, gives her occupation as a Domestic Servant so could this be a case of illegitimacy? This is looking even more likely when, looking at the 1881 census (Mary Gertrude was born in 1883), I find Elizabeth Parry, whose occupation is "dressmaker" living in the same residence as she was when she registered Mary's birth (House 7, Court 5, Dennison Street). Within the same family is Elizabeth's closest sibling, Edward Parry! (For info the reference is RG11/P3610/F95/P9 - although the entry is split over two pages)

So it would seem that Mary Gertrude has given her uncle's name as father on her marriage entry, as, I assume, he would have been the most 'fatherly' figure in her life up to that moment.

However, another question then arises as one of her sisters is married to a tailor (and they are living at the same address in 1881) - so she could be a legitimate dressmaker.

Also, thanks to the new GRO Birth Search facility, I have managed to note that Mary Gertrude flips from Evans to Parry when she is registering the births of her children. So now I've got two possible scenarios:

1. Mary's mother, Elizabeth, is a domestic servant to an Evans family and ends up having a child to one of the male members of the family. Mary knows (or finds out about this) so sometimes ends up using Evans as her maiden name.
2. Seeing as Elizabeth was born in Anglesey, and Evans is a common Welsh surname, it might be possible that she had a fiance/boyfriend who has visited Mary around this time and either finds out she's pregnant and wants nothing to do with her, or possibly dies before they can tie the knot.

I have to say that I am leaning towards scenario 1 at the moment, but that then begs the question as to why Mary would use Evans as her maiden name, which is why scenario 2 (where the fiance/boyfriend dies) also has it's merits. Elizabeth could well have spoken lovingly about the man she never got the chance to marry, however, that then throws up the question as to why Mary didn't include his name as her deceased father?

I feel I've broken through some way on this one, but the question as to who Mary's actual father could be still intrigues me.

[steveflan]

I've just noticed another possible link when re-reading through this thread. I mentioned in a previous post that the witnesses at Mary Getrude's wedding were Robert John Thomas and Mary Thomas - and guess what the name of the tailor was that was married to one of Mary's aunts? Robert Thomas! Although it looks like he married Ann Parry rather than a Mary - but I'm not going to count anything out on this family!

[MaryA]

Well done Steve, as you say - always keep an open mind

[lynne99]

All I can say is that if the police force need any ad hoc detectives then they could not do better than ask our members...