William Doyle in 1885 |
With a marriage date wavering between November 11, 1861 (according to family records) and November 14, 1863 (according to the UK GRO), I'm left wondering about the true date of the marriage of my great-great-grandparents, Andrew and Elizabeth (Laws) Doyle. I'm also left wondering about the status of my great-grandfather, William Doyle, due to the absence of any government or church record of his birth which would connect him to Andrew and Elizabeth.
The births of William's three siblings, born in England after him and before the family's move to the United States, were all registered with General Register Office. (These records are on order from UK GRO.) Elizabeth Jane was born 1864 in Morpeth, Northumberland; Robert was born 1866 in Alnwick Union, Northumberland; and Martha was born 1868 in Morpeth, Northumberland. So far I've been unable to find records of baptisms for any of the children.
I thought a timeline for William's parents as adults might help put things into perspective and clarify possibilities (or not).
1836 Apr 13 Andrew born in Wallsend, Northumberland, England (family info). (Christening transcription gives date of birth as 28 April 1836, location as Medomsley, Durham.)
1857 Sep 5 Married Jane Barron, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North'd (church and civil records)
1860 Oct 14 Jane (Barron) Doyle died, Guide Post, Bedlington, North'd (UK GRO)
1861 Nov 11 Married Elizabeth Laws, married at Woodburn, England (family records)
--OR--
1863 Nov 14 Married Elizabeth Laws, Woodhorn Church, Woodhorn, North'd (UK GRO)
1863 Mar 3 Son William born, Bedlinton, England (family records)
1864 Dec 30 Daughter Elizabeth Jane born, Bedlinton, England (family records)
1866 Sep 24 Son Robert born, Ratliff, England (family records)
1868 Apr 26 Daughter Martha born, Cambois, England (family records)
1869 Apr 12 Andrew arrived in the United States
1870 Oct 13 Elizabeth and four children arrived in the United States
Several questions come to mind.
- When were Andrew and Elizabeth married? In 1861 or 1863? If in 1861, having their first child nearly two years later seems unusual for the 1860s. On the 1900 U.S. Census Elizabeth indicated that she was the mother of 14 children, 11 of whom were living at the time, and all have been identified and accounted for. So it seems unlikely, if they were married in 1861, that she would have had other children before William. On the other hand, if Andrew and Elizabeth married in November, 1863, and William was born in March in 1863, he would have been born 8 months before they were married. I know it sometimes happened that couples conceived before marriage but from my observations, they didn't usually wait 8 months to marry.
- Why was William's birth not registered when the other three children's were?
- When was William born? And where? If in Bedlington in 1863 as family records say, why didn't they register his birth? With this family I've learned that family records lean toward impressions, legends, or myths.
- Could William be the son of Andrew and Jane (Barron) Doyle, Andrew's first wife? I found no evidence of this when I searched GRO records. I did find a William Doyle born in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1861 but his mother's maiden name was Quin. Not likely he is my William but because of this record I checked to see if Andrew had been married to Miss Quin between the death of his first wife, Jane, and his marriage to Elizabeth. I found no records suggesting this might be the case.
- Could William have been adopted?
Not finding civil or church information for William's birth a few years ago caused me to temporarily halt research on this family. But this is like an elephant in the room: it must be acknowledged and dealt with. There is a break in the family line without a connection between William and his parents, Andrew and Elizabeth.
Are there times when a family historian must accept that the only evidence may be (imperfect) family records? If so, I'm at that point—at least until other evidence becomes available.
-–Nancy.
Copyright © 2021 Nancy Messier. All Rights Reserved.
Do not copy or use any content from this blog without written permission from the owner.
.
For what it's worth, I would tend to go with the official marriage date. I had a similar circumstance in my family, it turned out the first child had passed away in infancy and left no record. I only learned of it's existence when I read the 1865 NY state census that inquired about the number of children born to a woman.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your thoughts, Ellie. I decided to accept the marriage date on the certificate and added a note that family records indicate a different date.
DeleteHow wonderful for you to be researching family in New York and to have the state census records halfway between the U.S. census records.