The Lieflock Line, Wootton Rivers and Tangley Trees

1 Milson Place, Lambeth, Surrey, England RG11 0606 F141 P47

Philip WINDER;Head;42;Labourer;Sussex, England Charlotte WINDER;Wife;35;;West Grafton, Wilts Alice WINDER;Daur;7;;St Georges In The East Mark WINDER;Son;4;;Canning Town, W Ham Annie WINDER;Daur;2mos;;Canning Town W Ham Ann BREWER;Visitor;30;;West Grafton, Wilts

7 Victoria Place, Battersea, London, England RG12 426 F109 P39

Phillip Winder;Head;53;General Labourer;Isfield, Sussex Charlotte Winder;Wife;45;;Grafton, Wilts Mark Winder;Son;15;Apprentice;Canning Town, Essex Annie Winder;Daur;10;;Canning Town, Essex George Winder;Son;6;;Battersea, Surrey Frank Winder;Son;4;;Battersea, Surrey Wm (sic) Voller;Lodger;50;General Labourer;Bramdean, Hants Charles Lovelock;Lodger;22;General Labourer;Grafton, Wilts

Graham Lovelock email 6 Nov 2004 I suspect that Charlotte and Philip married in the Lambeth RD in the March quarter of 1874. Certainly a Charlotte did, as you will find on FreeBMD, but for once there are only three names recorded for the Register page. The 1874 images are not available yet, so can't get any further with that.

Graham Lovelock note 13 May 2009: 1874 data now available shows that the Lambeth marriage was not of Charlotte Lovelock and Philip Winder.

Robert Sterry email message 7 Nov 2004 I decided to also check FreeBMD for that Lovelock-Winder marriage and came across this unexpected find:

Marriages Jun 1896

Curtis Alfred Kensington 1a 210Lovelock Lovelock Charlotte Kensington 1a 210 Treble Kate Kensington 1a 210 Winder Philip Kensington 1a 210

What do you make of that? I wondered if in fact they had married previously in perhaps some non-conformist church and then later married in the C of E for some reason. I checked Ancestral Trails for any such precedents at this time. But the requirement for Catholics and Protestant dissenters to be married in the Anglican church (as well as their own if they wished to be legal) ended in 1837. If they weren't legally married, this might of course affect inheritance rights. Perhaps they really didn't marry until 1896?

Graham L on 23 April 2014: Marriage Register imagery at Ancestry confirms the 1896 marriage, but provides no explanation for why they married then.