Find Ancestors

But the 1901 census for 119 Westbourne Terrace does not have her. I cannot believe she has been missed off accidentally. As to witnesses at the wedding, there must be some reason why it was the Burrells, and not the direct family. Did it not say in the London Gazette that it was a "quiet marriage". How odd for a wealthy family to have a quiet marriage. Maybe it was just how it happened to be. Some of the family out of the country, not many relatives around to share the ceremony. Maybe she gave the address as a matter of convenience for the marriage - if it had been in another borough it would have incurred more aggro.

Do you know if the marriage was as a result of banns being read, or whatever the other alternative is, I forget. If banns are read, the people are usually in residence for three weeks before the wedding, but if by Bishop's decree or similar, not necessarily.

Was it a church wedding, or a register office?

Just trying to get a picture, Nicola.

Meg

My guess is that she left Chorlton after her father's death and lived at Westbourne Terrace with Charles and Edith. Which would then support the fact that neither of them can be found in 1901 census - maybe BOTH out of the country. One assumes that she must have met Francis Wilford Boteler in London - this is his divorce from Elizabeth Augusta Boteler in
1887. Case Files National Archives, Kew Co respondents Maurice Block and William Palmer

He was certainly resident in London at 27 Piccadilly in the early 1890s.

Can't find a banns in London

Hi, have just checked the position regarding church weddings via a BBC article on divorce and Christianity. Divorce and remarriage has been permitted in England, it says, since Henry VIII regularised the position to marry Anne Boleyn; but the Church of England would not marry divorcees even by the twentieth century; Charles and Camilla could not marry in church since her husband was still alive; instead they had a civil ceremony and the marriage was then blessed in church. So Francis and Ethel's marriage would not be in a Church of England parish church by either banns or licence (unless, perhaps, Francis's previous wife had died). I wonder if they used the Register Office licence procedure?

-just (edit: one male) repondent; here he is in 1901, with Francis' ex-wife:

Name: Maurice Wm Palmer Block <<<Major, Royal Garrison Artillery
Age: 43
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1858
Relation: Head
Spouse's Name: Elizabeth Augusta Block
Gender: Male
Where born: East Indies, Bengal

Civil parish: Dover
Ecclesiastical parish: St Mary the Virgin (within the castle)
County/Island: Kent
Country: England

Registration district: Dover
Sub-registration district: St James
ED, institution, or vessel: Dover Castle<<< Military quarters

Household schedule number: 1
Piece: 839
Folio: 148
Page Number: 1

Name Age
Maurice Wm Palmer Block 43
Elizabeth Augusta Block 41
John Groombridge 26 <<<<<<< soldier servant (married)
Carrie Groombridge 28

Wonder what happened to the son born in Madras 12/5/1878 - Wilford Henry Boteler - can't see anything on him after the christening 8/6/1878.

- here he is in school in 1891:

BOTELER, Wilford Henry
Pupil Single Male
Age 12 so born about 1879
Scholar
Born Ootacamsind India (Ay has it as Potalamund India); googling suggests it would be Ootacamund, a hill station in Tamil Nadu
Piece: 1787
Folio: 133
Page: 4
Registration District: Bideford

Civil Parish: Northam
Address: Northam, Westward Ho
County: Devonshire

Looks like we went into Royal Irish Fusiliers (4th Battalion Princess Victoria reg) - 2nd Leutenant according to Times 12/2/1896

Possible marriage in 1914 South Africa, but can't access the actual record.

Ivy - of course. Didn't give the fact that he was a divorcee a thought.

This might also explain the choice of witnesses. Edith (and therefore Ethel) were daughters of a clergyman. Charles was the son of a clergyman. Perhaps they didn't even attend because of their principles? Although I wonder who gave Ethel away (does someone do this in civil ceremonies?)

Jude

They certainly got about a bit - marriage for Maurice Block/Elizabeth Lang in Boston, 1888:

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-12579-14006-10?cc=1469062

Jude, yes, absolutely, I could not understand why the marriage was not on the London Met archives of parish records - it only struck me when I was thinking about licences.

I wonder if the Burrells were supporting Francis following his divorce; were Burrell, Boteler and Block all in the Artillery together?

Following Flip's find, it looks as if Elizabeth Augusta Lang might have been born in India:

name: Elizabeth Augusta Lang
gender: Female
baptism/christening date: 12 Mar 1861
baptism/christening place: Meerut, Bengal, India
birth date: 10 Aug 1860
father's name: John Lang
mother's name: Margaret
indexing project (batch) number: C49324-1
system origin: India-EASy
source film number: 499002

Could someone check the 1901 census to see who is living with Ann Ord, just before her marriage to Willoughby? She's in the same area as the sisters were born, but not sure if this is the right Ann Ord.

Ann Ord b1851 and in Chorlton, Lancashire?

Think this is Anne Selby Burnell Ord born Scotland 1863 died 1910.

1901 she is a Boarder

Ann S B Ord
Belgrave D11 > 26.

Maryb.

I thought the one getting married to Willoughby was born 1851 in Glendale?

Anne/Ann Selby B Ord married Willoughby 4.6.1901 St George 1a 947.

She was born 26/6/1863 Roxborough Scotland and died 12/5/1910 London.
Her dad was John Ord a farmer of 960 acres in Roxborough Scotland.
John Ord born Jedburgh Roxburgshire 1834.

1881 with widowed mum Jane R Ord farmer of 2670 acres.

1861 says husband of Jane R Ord was John Ord 1812!!

Maryb.

How weird; the one born in Crailing in Roxburgh is on the Scotland 1871, 1881 and 1891 census as Ann(ie) S B Ord; born in the mid 1860s to John Ord and Jane Read/Reed Dodd according to Family search, with several other siblings being given the middle name Bunell/Burrell etc.

name: Ann Selby Bunell Ord
gender: Female
birth date: 26 Jun 1863
birthplace: CRAILING,ROXBURGH,SCOTLAND
father's name: John Ord
mother's name: Jane Reed Dodd
indexing project (batch) number: C11786-1
system origin: Scotland-ODM
source film number: 6035516

But there is also this entry on Free BMD as posted earlier:

Births 1851, Jan-Mar quarter (double keyed since the writing is difficult to decipher)

ORD Ann Selby Burnell Glendale 25 292
Ord Ann Selby Burr[ie]ll Glendale 25 292

I agree with Mary that the Roxburgh one is the more likely.

Hi Flip

the Chorlton resident is married:

Name: Ann Ord
Age: 50
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1851
Relation: Wife
Spouse's Name: Richard Ord
Gender: Female
Where born: Manchester, Lancashire, England

Civil parish: South Manchester
Ecclesiastical parish: Ardwick St Matthew
County/Island: Lancashire
Country: England

Registration district: Chorlton
Sub-registration district: Ardwick
ED, institution, or vessel: 15
Neighbors: View others on page
Household schedule number: 176
Piece: 3676
Folio: 16
Page Number: 23

Name Age
Richard Ord 51
Ann Ord 50
Robert Ord 23
Arthur Ord 29
Annie Ord 17
Amy Ord 14

Oh well, guess thats another dead end, on trying to find the sisters in 1901!

Rather a strange co-incidence there are 2 Ann SB Ord's, surely there must be a family connection, but it won't get us any nearer the original objective.

Another loose end to tie down? Anne Selby Burrell Wallace (daughter of an Edinburgh banker), born 1851, married William Logan before they went out to India; their daughter was Mary Ord Logan.

(from http://www.electricscotland.com/familytree/newsletters/logan/Vol3No1logan.pdf)

Hmm, I gave up on trying to find them in England at the 1901 census date after Vera's inspired suggestion that they might be buying their wedding frocks in Paris!

With the means to travel and the family connections elsewhere, it would have been incorrect for them to be included on the 1901 census if they were in fact outside England and Wales on the night that it was taken.

When the 2011 census details were collected I saw that we were required to give details of where we usually resided even if we were away elsewhere - it would have come in very handy for the 1901 census for these sisters....