And Old Ma incorrectly listed JAL as DEAD twice - on both of her subsequent marriages. Not that she was abandoned. Obviously old Ma had neglected to read those books on Victorian marriage by those female authors.
Maybe because she was marrying a policeman led her to lie. Was he a party to this lie? Probably given his family cobbler trade and Hereford roots.
Whether she would have been fined a farthing or more we can I believe safely count her marriages as bigimous.
On the 1861 census I think all we see is Thomas Cross being socially embarrassed when dealing with the enumerator. Hence the children were his and he added 10 years to his age.
But back to Gary...
If CAL had given his true name and that name had appeared in the papers, what implication would anyone in Hereford, or elsewhere for that matter, draw with respect to his mother's marital status?
Maybe because she was marrying a policeman led her to lie. Was he a party to this lie? Probably given his family cobbler trade and Hereford roots.
Whether she would have been fined a farthing or more we can I believe safely count her marriages as bigimous.
On the 1861 census I think all we see is Thomas Cross being socially embarrassed when dealing with the enumerator. Hence the children were his and he added 10 years to his age.
But back to Gary...
If CAL had given his true name and that name had appeared in the papers, what implication would anyone in Hereford, or elsewhere for that matter, draw with respect to his mother's marital status?
Comment