Family Historian User Group

What do you make of this marriage transcription?
I think it is a mis-transcription as homosexuality was still illegal in 1902. I can find no trace of a marriage for Isaac in 1902. Anyone got any bright ideas?

Try

Ancestry

Name: Isabel Lefever
Gender: Female
Marriage Age: 20
Record Type: Marriage
Birth Date: abt 1882
Marriage Date: 30 Apr 1902
Marriage Place: Canning Town , St. Gabriel, Essex , England
Spouse: Alfred Hawnton
Gender: Male
Marriage Age: 28
Birth Date: abt 1874


FreeBMD

Marriages Mar 1902 (>99%)
Engall Alice Hackney 1b 700
Hawnton Alfred Hackney 1b 700
Lefevre Isabel Hackney 1b 700
Marler Alfred Hackney 1b 700

Thanks Jane I was hung up on Isaac being correct.

Don't worry, it's easy to get blinkered especially when faced with something odd.

I spent ages trying to find someone in India the other day, and got the person I was researching to check with his father and it turns out she was probably born in Armenia!

What's even more annoying is that i already had that marriage with the correct names in my Surname Study. As a result I have written a couple of new queries to allow partial input searches to reduce the duplicate entries and to help with something like this.

Why not report the problem to FMP and eventually they should correct the transcription?
I have successfully had FMP transcripts corrected.

@Mike

Unfortunately on this group of transcriptions that they have there is no report error link as they are bought in ones rather than some they have done themselves. Like you, I have had others successfully updated when they are wrong.

Update: I contacted FMP by their Chat function and they are looking into it.

I have actually found the PR for the marriage and there is so much wrong with the transcription it isn't true, date, church, county, first name, surnames. I would advise anyone using this recordset on FMP to treat it with a bucket full of salt.

Actually I wonder if the Essex entry might exist but as a cancelled, skeleton?

The FamilySearch index has:

Name: Alfred Hawnton
Gender: Male
Marital status: Widowed
Marriage Date: 30 Apr 1902
Marriage Place: St Gabriels, Canning Town, Essex, England
Spouse: Isabel Lefevre
FHL Film Number: 001471946

That film exists and is all Canning Town, Essex, albeit two different parishes. Moreover the FamilySearch site's version of the index has the spouse's address as 11 Ship St. It would seem a touch unusual if an error was so far out as to introduce a completely new address - so far out that I do wonder if they were planning to get married in Canning Town, got married in Hackney instead but the Canning Town entry was already in their Register as an empty skeleton. It wouldn't be the first time that I've seen an empty entry indexed. But, of course, I can't check the Essex image....

@Adrian

It would be useful to see the Essex entry I agree. Canning Town is close to Hackney but at the time they were in two different counties. Bearing in mind the record set is Banns as well I wonder if that has come in to play? Isabel was born in Bethnal Green and that is where she lived until her marriage so a marriage in Canning Town imho is less likely than one in Hackney, and this church in Hackney is where she was baptised / christened. Probably one of those anomalies that we will never know the true reason for.

Banns? That must be a possibility. FamilySearch are notorious for, every so often, bundling all marriage related stuff together as just "marriage". As it is, it's the wrong side of the Essex paywall. Curiosity has its limits!

Adrian's got it pretty much right with his skeleton theory

An entry appears in the St Gabriel register dated April 30 1902, but falls in between entries for March 14 and March 31

The couple's age and status are filled in with Isabel's residence (nothing for Alfred, no parent details for either)

The entry is crossed with the word "Cancelled" like you'd cancel a messed-up bank cheque

Entry Number 294, SEAX, D/P 514/1/7 viewed 28/8/19 for those of a Millsian citational bent

@StevieSteve

Thanks for that. It is interesting that you say that the first names are correct it just goes to show how poor the transcriber was.

Given where the entry is I suspect the date for the skeleton entry was 30 March (the actual day of their marriage) not actually the 30th April. Maybe they changed their minds on the church they wanted to get married in as they are relatively close hence the correct entry for the 30th March in Hackney.