Family Tree of Knowledge 6: Missing Marriage Records 2 (England)

In England, Lord Hardwick’s Marriage Act of 1753 was passed in order to prevent clandestine marriages, particularly those of minors, and other abuses. It legislated that valid marriages must be held in the Established Church (Church of England, Anglican Church) after the publication of banns or by special licence. Minors must obtain the consent of parents or guardians. However, the Act excepted the Royal Family, Jews and Quakers, and did not apply to Scotland or the Channel Islands. An amendment of 1836 permitted marriage before a registrar or with religious rites other than Anglican.
So, between 1753 and 1837 - unless one’s ancestors were Quakers or Jews - it would be expected to find evidence of the marriage in an Anglican parish church register. That is, where such a register would have survived, because there were also quite a few marriage registers covering that period that have unfortunately gone missing.
Even so, it would appear that in areas where there is no loss of marriage registers there can still be a large number of such unions going unrecorded. A sudden conversion to Quakerism or even to the Jewish religion would certainly not explain the lack of records, for, in most cases the children were baptised in a local parish church. So, why did so many couples fail to have their marriages performed within the Church of England, and thus legitimise their issue?
Perhaps in many cases the answer could be that – despite the passing of the 1753 Act – clandestine “Fleet marriages” persevered because of the ignorance of those getting married. There were still obviously many con-men who would pretend to be ordained priests of the Anglican Church in order to reap financial benefits, and there were always potential victims, who could easily be persuaded to part with their money as long as it appeared that they were receiving their hearts’ desires. Unfortunately for the modern researcher, an illegal “marriage” would not be recorded, and thus not leave a “paper trail”.
Yet, there is a way through which one may still be able to trace both parties of an illegal union - a common-law “husband” with his common-law “wife”. Unfortunately, this can only be achieved if it is known that either one party – or even both parties – were previously married.
Imagine, for example, records of a married woman whose husband had mysteriously changed his forename at some point during their marriage, and had then retained that latter name for the remainder of his life. How would one explain the reason for this? Possibly the most glib answer would be to say that the husband had actually preferred the latter name and decided upon taking it for himself. Such an answer would be seriously quoted as a good enough reason by several family historians, no doubt.
Now for fact: Charles Hutchins married Annie Oliver at Church Oakley in Hampshire on 13 October 1883. Five children were recorded for Charles and Ann Hutchins between 1884 and 1897, and then in 1901 Annie’s last child was born at North Oakley as the daughter of James and Ann Hutchins. It could be suggested that an error was made by both the registrar of births and deaths for the Kingsclere District, and also by the rector of Hannington, where the child was christened. An alternative theory would, of course, be that Charles had decided to change his name to James – and was also recorded on the 1901 Census under that latter name.
Actually, there was no error in the record of the father’s name, and, he definitely did not decide to change his name. The fact was that Charles Hutchins had died at Folly Farm, Ashe, on 24 September 1898. James Hutchins was his brother.
The family story mentioned that James had promised his brother on his death bed that he would take care of Annie and the children. Naturally, that story would be often repeated as it was brought down through the generations. It is a fact that James did take his late brother’s wife and brought up his nephew and four nieces as his own – furthermore, to cement the union Annie had another daughter, this time by her brother-in-law who was now her common-law “husband”. There is no record of their marriage. So, why didn’t they make it all legal?
The truth is that they couldn’t. They were prevented from doing so - and anyway it would not have really mattered, for Annie already had her second husband’s surname. The children would have therefore shared the same family name. The prime reason for marriage, anyway, is to ensure the legitimacy of the children, and here such “legitimacy”, albeit false, could be naturally assumed by others because the parents and the children had the same surname. Nobody would question the legal marital status, unless, of course, the knew the couple personally.
The above is one example of several similar cases whereby a particular widow did not and was not able to marry again. Unfortunately, this problem was not at all uncommon in those days. The plight of a widow, left with young children, would have been dire if she could not call upon assistance from her own or her late husband’s family – or, even in some cases, very generous friends or neighbours. Without such support, most likely the only option open to her was to enter into the workhouse. At least she and her children would be boarded and fed there, if nothing more. Despite the grim prospects that it presented, being workhouse inmates was far better than the family starving on the streets.
When a man was widowed with young children then he was left in much a similar situation. As the wage-earner he still had to work, and most men worked long hours in those days. Thus, he had to rely upon his own or his late wife’s relatives, or even friends or neighbours, to care for his offspring while he was away from home. In most cases, of course, he did not even known how to cope with them.
In the cases where the wife’s family helped it would quite often be the case of a spinster sister-in-law coming to live with the widower and his children, initially, it can be suggested, as the housekeeper, cook and nursemaid. In time, the couple might even have set up home together and had more children.
Civil registration has actually revealed such unions. There have been several recorded cases of widowers marrying their late wife’s sisters, as in the matter, for example, of George Baggs of Ibworth, Hampshire. He married Hannah Woodhouse in Hannington church in 1846. She died in 1863, and in 1867 he married her sister Harriet Woodhouse in Lady Huntingdon’s chapel in Basingstoke.
Another interesting case in my recollection had actually involved a widower marrying his mother-in-law after his wife’s death. The couple were living in Gloucestershire, and had to travel a considerable distance out of the county in order to marry by banns, after having claimed residential qualifications for three weeks. Some time later they were able to return to their native parish in Gloucestershire as husband and wife.
Both marriages illustrated above were illegal at those times. Nevertheless, the events were registered, which, to all intents and purposes, casts a kind of legal blanket over them – although, the legality of each could easily be disputed in a court of law. The discriminating laws of the Anglican Church is the reason why, in the first case, one couple had to marry in a nonconformist chapel, and, in the second case, had to travel a considerable distance, in order not be identified, so that they could marry in a church according to the rites of the Church of England. The first example – a marriage that was wholly illegal in the eyes of the Establish Church, yet performed in a dissenting chapel other than a Quaker meeting-house - could only have taken place after 1837, when marriages in such establishments were permitted, provided that a registrar was present to record it. In the second case, it appears that such a marriage would still be illegal now.
Until the legal reforms of the middle of the 19th century, laws concerning matrimony came under the jurisdiction of the Church. Among the most important of these – and equally important to genealogists – is the law that forbade the marriage of close relatives, that is, the law against consanguinity (prohibited degrees), which had been in force for several centuries. This was the same law that Henry VIII had invoked in his attempt to divorce from his first wife, Catharine of Aragon. A major revision did not occur until around the middle of the 20th century. Since The Marriage (Enabling) Act, 1960, a man may now marry a sister, aunt or niece of a former wife (living or dead), and, alternatively, a woman may marry a brother, uncle or nephew of a former husband. Prior to that legislation each of these acts was unlawful.
According to the Church and also the laws of the land, when a man married then his wife’s family technically became his own. Her mother became his mother (in-law), her sister his sister (in-law), and so on. Thus, it became recognised that, as his wife’s sister was regarded as his sister (albeit, “in-law”), then they were of the same blood since the marriage, and closely related. They were of the prohibited degrees that barred them from marrying each other after the wife’s death.
The prohibited degrees of consanguinity extended over the following of the late wife’s relatives, thus preventing the grieving husband to marry :-
Her grandmother, mother, aunt, sister, daughter, niece, granddaughter.
And over the late husband’s relatives, thus preventing his widow to marry :-
His grandfather, father, uncle, brother, son, nephew, grandson.
Cousins did not come within this sphere of forbidden unions.
Hence, when Thomas Smallbone’s wife died in 1826, and he took “to wife” her niece Ann Benham by 1828 (when their son was born), the couple could not get married legally because Ann was within the prohibited degree of relationship to Thomas’ late wife. Thus, although it took some detective work to find out the name of Thomas’ second wife, it had helped that he had been widowed.
If the reader cannot find the maiden name of an ancestor’s wife, yet knows that the husband had been previously married, then, before looking anywhere else, investigate the family of the first wife – for it is more likely than not that you will find her there. Naturally, census records of the 19th century will facilitate your search for clues.
If you cannot find a marriage record then look at the possibility of the husband being previously married. Particularly, if you find a short-lived marriage where the wife had died soon afterwards. There could be the possibility of a union of prohibited degrees that would have prevented a legal marriage from taking place.
See previous Missing Marriage Records (England) before 1753
12 March 2007.

[The author is a professional genealogist and historical researcher of 35 years' experience, dealing with all types of sources in England, but now specialising in medieval, manorial and legal work. For more information visit http://www.thechangingseasons.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=22&chapter=40 ]

Family Tree of Knowledge 5: Missing Marriage Records 1 (England)

In England, Lord Hardwick’s Marriage Act of 1753 was passed in order to prevent clandestine marriages, particularly those of minors, and other abuses. Thus, if one cannot find the record of a particular marriage of ancestors prior to that year then obviously there arises the question if such a marriage or liaison was legal or not.
Because the marriage cannot be found it does not necessarily imply that it was a clandestine – illegal or “Fleet” – marriage. The answer may simply be that it took place in a parish where the register that recorded it had been lost, stolen, burnt, severely damaged, destroyed, or had just been misplaced or had disappeared.
Unfortunately, there have been many such mishaps with our vital records in England. In northern Hampshire alone the earliest surviving registers for Eastrop, Hannington, Newnham, Nutley, Tufton, Tunworth, and Woodmancote date from around the middle of the 18th century, while Ashmansworth, Freefolk and Farleigh Wallop have registers that begin in the early 19th (although in most cases these date from when the parish was newly formed). There are even recorded instances of an enterprising clergyman transcribing entries from an old register and into a new one, in order to save these historical accounts for posterity. In this way David Renaud the curate had collected together several entries from various loose memorandum papers for the parish of Ewhurst from 1682 to 1773. As the rector of Hannington, Mr Renaud must also be commended for saving that parish’s extant registers as well, for they survive only from 1768, the year that he took up his post there.
Therefore, to some great degree, our success in discovering the records of our ancestors can merely be seen as being the result of good luck, particularly when the registers were held in the caring hands of such persons as David Renaud and his ilk. Unfortunately, though, a great number have not survived – and even after they had arrived almost unscathed at county record offices, a few were since stolen (or had pages removed) by selfish researchers, which eventually led to the security measures that we take for granted now, including reading microfiche copies instead of the originals.
The majority of pre-1753 marriages would have taken place in an Anglican church, for the very reason that a marriage was not considered legal unless it was celebrated according to the rites of the Established Church. Naturally, such a condition allowed unscrupulous “parsons” to prey on the ignorant. At least one member of each of the couples who were joined together in Fleet marriages would have believed that they were so legally bound. But they were only common law “husband” and “wife”, according to the law. Those married at sea did not fare any better.
Until 1689 nonconformists were being persecuted for their religious beliefs, and even marriages within their own congregations were not permitted by law. With the exception of Quakers and Jews, marriages performed according to other nonconformist services remained illegal up until 1837. Hence, dissenting groups (excepting Quakers) were careful not to record the marriages of their own members. The Quakers were particularly stubborn and continued to make such records even during the height of the Clarendon Code persecutions of them and other sects between 1661 and 1689.
Nevertheless, the strong feeling of illegality had undoubtedly caused numerous dissenters to attend Anglican religious services and also to marry within the Church of England, although it must be suspected that they had equally celebrated a wedding service within their own religious meeting. Such “Occasional Conformity” was widely known, and even encouraged in some communities, for while a family attended a church service at least once a month they were then immune from the penalties being inflicted by the authorities on those who would not conform to the State religion, which legislation had been in force since the last years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign.
Because one had found a marriage of one’s ancestors in an Anglican parish register, one must not always assume that those people were ardent Anglicans. They could have been forced to marry in the Church because of religious persecution. In the men’s minutes book of the Hampshire Quarterly Meeting one can read the continuous admonishing from their fellow Friends of Quakers who had married in “steeple houses” (Anglican churches), along with the complaint that this was becoming a fairly regular practice. While many Friends had stood up for their religious principles, there were always those who were weaker and thus afraid of the consequences.
If the marriage was not recorded in a surviving Anglican parish register or perhaps in a Quaker digest or original meeting book then the likelihood of discovering the actual marriage record would be extremely slight. There are, however, certain ways to hopefully find the maiden name of the wife, even if the marriage itself cannot be discovered - although it must be considered that the success rate will probably be very low.
Marriage licences and allegations for marriage licences are the most common source to look at when searching for the elusive marriage. Unfortunately, these are normally limited to those families of substance and wealth, leaving the poorer couples unrepresented, having to marry by banns (which were not usually recorded until after 1753).
The marriage settlement is naturally the most useful, for it records proposed marriages and the names of the interested parties, including the bride’s father in most cases. These can be found in various property deeds, but again they are severely limited, for they comprise indentures favouring the gentry class and above – that is, those with considerable lands.
Yet, another form of marriage settlement – although not specifically termed as such – can be found within manorial court rolls, but only in those that record the business of the courts baron. These were the courts held solely in the interests of the lord of the manor, recording local matters such as grants of reversion to copyholds, admittances, surrenders and deaths, as well as many other activities.
When a copyhold tenant had nominated a daughter instead of a son to the reversion of a copyhold, it was wholly in order to provide her with a dowry, and in due course she would nominally succeed to the tenure, but under the governance of her husband. Later grants and other warrants would record the woman’s married name. Copyholds were held by labourers as well as by yeomen, and later by tradesmen, professionals and gentry, as well.
Wills can often show the names of married daughters and even their husbands, but, of course, the problem here is exacerbated by the fact that one is normally looking for the wife’s maiden surname in the first place. Unless there is a wills index handy (which is extremely rare) one could not be able to locate one’s male ancestor in his father-in-law’s will. However, it can be useful to sift through several wills of the parish wherein the man was baptised, for it is probably more likely than not that he had married a local girl or even one within a small radius of his village.
More often than not a man would have married a woman within his own social circle. Farmers normally married farmers’ daughters, although they would also seek wives from the families of butchers, or other tradesmen, such as shopkeepers and innkeepers. Quite often, though, an older bachelor farmer would marry his housekeeper or servant, on the grounds that they would be able to look after him. A lawyer would naturally marry into a wealthy professional family, and so on. Locality and status were often thought to be important. So, if your male ancestor was a tradesman or professional, have a look at other families in that same or associated trade or profession.
Furthermore, the farmer or other businessman tended to marry later in life than the labourer - most probably after they had been able to get established in business, so as to be able to provide for a family. Quite often they took very young wives. The reverse did happen, on occasion, when the older woman married the younger man, and this was normally because the woman had wealth and property, which the man would then inherit.
See next Missing Marriage Records (England) after 1753

[The author is a professional genealogist and historical researcher of 35 years' experience, dealing with all types of sources in England, but now specialising in medieval, manorial and legal work. For more information visit http://www.thechangingseasons.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=22&chapter=40 ]

Family Tree of Knowledge 4: English Marriage Records

In England, Lord Hardwick’s Marriage Act of 1753 was passed in order to prevent clandestine marriages, particularly those of minors, and other abuses. Formerly, a marriage had been valid under the common law if the parties merely consented to marriage in the presence of witnesses, and celebrated by an Anglican priest. Clandestine marriages, sometimes of minors, were commonly celebrated – often for a sum of money – in the district of the Fleet Prison in London (hence being termed “Fleet marriages”) by persons pretending to be priests. One such “parson” had claimed to have married 6,000 couples, while another had earned himself £75 12s 0d in one month alone! Con-men regularly frequented the prisons and taverns of London, selling illegal “marriages” *.
The Marriage Act of 1753 stipulated that a marriage, in order to be valid in England and Wales, must be held and celebrated in a church of the Established Church of England (Anglican), and only after the publication of banns or by special licence. Minors must also obtain the consent of parents or guardians. The Act nevertheless excepted the royal family, Jews and Quakers. The royal family required the sovereign’s consent and would be governed by the Royal Marriage Act; Jews were naturally excepted on religious grounds; the Quakers had successfully argued that their marriages were never illegal because they had been lawful prior to the Restoration of 1660, and no Act of Parliament had proclaimed otherwise. While Jews and Quakers continued to celebrate marriages without harassment, other nonconformists – including Roman Catholics – had to wait until 1836, when an amendment to the Marriage Act was finally passed that would permit marriage before a registrar or with religious rites other than Anglican. The Act for the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths came into force on 1 July 1837.
Thus, with the exception of Jews and Quakers, legal marriages could only be performed in England and Wales and their colonies, by Anglican clergymen prior to the commencement of civil registration. One would only need to find the marriage entry of ancestors in an official Church of England parish register in order to establish its legality. Yet, taking into account the survival rate of the early registers, it could prove to be quite a difficult task. The job does become easier for those records after 1753, as separate marriage registers were being provided, and most of these still survive. Banns were also recorded in those same registers. Happily, since the introduction of civil registration in 1837, one should have no difficulty in tracing a marriage from that time, for they appear on national indexes. So, how is it that there are some marriages that cannot be found, even after 1837?
A fact to always remember is that birth and death are natural events, but marriage is wholly a legal status. We cannot argue about a birth if a certain person can be proved to have been living at some point. Even without a record of death, such can be naturally assumed after a certain number of years. Yet, when it comes to marriage it is only the actual legal record that would prove that the event had occurred. Marriage is therefore purely a legal matter, confirmed by record.
See next Missing Marriage Records (England) before 1753

* Basil Williams, The Whig Supremacy, 2nd edition, revised by CH Stuart, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, p 136.

[The author is a professional genealogist and historical researcher of 35 years' experience, dealing with all types of sources in England, but now specialising in medieval, manorial and legal work. For more information visit http://www.thechangingseasons.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=22&chapter=40 ]

Family Tree of Knowledge 3: The Anatomy of Genealogical Research

In reality, genealogical research is not an easy “hobby” to undertake. It requires a huge amount of patience, persistence, hard slog, and many other worthy attributes. For accurate genealogical research it is required that, having found a potential ancestor, the researcher ought to attempt to establish him or her fully in the lineage through additional evidence from further research. Researchers may forget, or even ignore, this important point, but ultimately it will be at their cost. Genealogical research that eventually goes “off-track” is highly expensive and fruitless.
With genealogical research one has to be a detective to search out the clues, and a barrister (a prosecuting or defence attorney) to prove the case. That, unfortunately, is the true nature of this beast. Throughout history genealogy had always come under the umbrella of the legal profession, and in practice remains so.
It has often been boasted that some had traced their families entirely through on-line genealogical research. In reality, however, that would be an impossible task! They may have traced persons with the same names as their ancestors, but how do they know that they are the correct ones if they had not confirmed them with other sources? If continued in this vein, they would merely compound their problems. To discover one’s true ancestor involves a great deal more in genealogical research than clicking buttons on a computer, and even solely searching through parish register fiches for baptisms and marriages.
An acquaintance with an uncommon name, with the help of information software, discovered hundreds with the same name currently living in England. Bearing in mind that in previous generations there were very much fewer forenames in existence than today (and in the sixteenth century, many families had two or more children with the same name), genealogical research naturally becomes more difficult.
Most on-line researchers trace their families through the International Genealogical Index. The IGI has been around for many years, but, in the main, professionals only use it as a guide when undertaking genealogical research. It is a great concept, but, unfortunately, it started off badly by including numerous inaccuracies, and sometimes complete fallacies, which can never be corrected, despite the compilers’ numerous attempts.
When undertaking genealogical research, on-line researchers can only key in to what is already there. They will naturally be unable to trace what is not there. Hampshire (a county in England) contains over 250 parishes. Yet, less than 20% of the county was ever covered on the IGI, and this minute portion of the whole is largely concentrated in the south of the county. So, if an on-line researcher is looking for somebody, supposedly born about 1700, and if the real ancestor was born in northern Hampshire, the enquirer who only undertakes on-line genealogical research will never know. Instead, he or she would have “adopted” an ancestor who was not in the least related to the family. One can never assume that somebody with the same name as one’s ancestor was that ancestor, without undertaking further time-consuming accurate genealogical research.
Local knowledge is also very important, and on-line genealogical research could never be a substitute for it. Accurate research entails numerous activities, and can quite often include the use of professional and local assistance. It cannot be accomplished solely through the means of a computer. Pure on-line genealogical research can ultimately become the most expensive kind, for the chances of tracing the wrong ancestors increase dramatically through this method of investigation. That surely cannot be in anybody’s interest - except perhaps those who profit from promoting this type of genealogical research.

[The author is a professional genealogist and historical researcher of 35 years' experience, dealing with all types of sources in England, but now specialising in medieval, manorial and legal work. For more information visit http://www.thechangingseasons.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=22&chapter=40 ]

Family Tree of Knowledge 2: Factual or Fictitious Family Ancestor

The modern concept of tracing one’s family ancestor as a leisure activity was virtually unknown before the Victorian period. Until then genealogy had primarily been used as a legal process, in order to support a claim – to a crown, rank or title, or office (wholly confirmed through descent from a renowned family ancestor), or, more commonly, to prove title to property. Pedigrees can even be found among medieval and later law court papers .
Furthermore, those pedigrees compiled by the heralds at the College of Arms in London always show the descent from a certain family ancestor, who had been officially granted a coat-of-arms. They were drawn up in order that his descendants would then be legally confirmed as entitled to bear and display his coat-of-arms. It is indeed a modern fallacy to suggest that there is such a thing as a “family coat-of-arms”. This notion is hawked by market-traders and “genealogical” websites, who prey upon the uninitiated and ignorant, enforcing the misconception that every surname has a coat-of-arms. The only people entitled to a coat-of-arms are those who can legally prove descent from a certain armigerous family ancestor – that is, a family ancestor who had been granted that device in the first place.
Likewise, false information, and, more importantly, “filling the void” when no evidence exists or survives, has caused numerous false genealogies over the centuries. Many members of the English nobility still claim descent from a family ancestor who supposedly fought at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Yet, the main source for their claims – the Battle Abbey Roll – had been proved (in 1901) to be compiled over 300 years after that event had taken place, and was therefore undoubtedly “invented”. For most of the families who claim to have a French family ancestor, it was more than likely that the family ancestor did not arrive in England until many years after the famous battle.
Genealogical research can therefore prove to be very disappointing for those who are obsessed with finding a family ancestor who was “noble” or “royal” or extremely “notable”, for the simple reason that they are – and always were - the targets of unscrupulous “genealogists” and “historians”. There are certainly many more fictitious or inaccurate genealogies that have been compiled or claimed throughout the world than there are genuine ones, unfortunately. That would mean that many families would have a so-called family ancestor who was not actually related to them.
Although there is evidence stating that genealogy had been pursued as a leisure activity by a few individuals even before the mid-nineteenth century, the Victorians were the ones who had made family ancestor research popular, and had therefore, to a great degree, brought it into the world of the hobbyist and out of the hands of the legal profession. Victorian academics went to work transcribing multitudes of records that had previously been out of reach to the majority of the working and middle classes, and, as their labours were replicated by their successors, then the whole field began to open up, thus allowing more and more people to become hooked in their quest to discover their family ancestor.
Yet, until more recent years research had been limited to the few devotees, curious about a family ancestor. Non-enthusiasts had often stated their lack of interest in history as the reason why genealogy did not appeal to them. However, times they are a-changin’, and, amazingly, some of those very people who were never interested in history have even now become equally obsessed with the attempt to trace their family ancestor.

[The author is a professional genealogist and historical researcher of 35 years' experience, dealing with all types of sources in England, but now specialising in medieval, manorial and legal work. For more information visit http://www.thechangingseasons.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=22&chapter=40 ]

Family Tree of Knowledge 1: Ancestry Research through the Ages

Early Ancestry Research

Although it ranks as one of the world’s most popular leisure pursuits today, ancestry research is certainly not a modern phenomenon, by any means. It may not be the oldest profession, but its adherents were definitely around at the dawn of history. In those days, ancestry research – or genealogy or the method of producing pedigrees – was an art form adopted by highly skilled “technicians”, who were often rewarded for their services. To be truthful, the genealogists of those days were more akin to our modern writers of fiction than to any serious historian or legal expert, and their methods of ancestry research would undoubtedly be laughed at nowadays.
Nevertheless, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks and Romans employed the skills of the genealogist, because his ancestry research would reveal links between kings and emperors, and, more importantly, “proved” their descents from the gods. Of course, the Roman Caesars went one better than this eventually, and claimed to be gods themselves, and they probably hoped that in later years future ancestry research would be employed to establish links with them.
Yet, ancestry research was not limited to the so-called “civilisations” of the world. It was wholly in the “public domain”, and therefore ancestry research was freely used by the cultured and the barbarian alike.
In the seventh and eighth centuries of the Christian era each of the various kingdoms in Anglo-Saxon England had their royal genealogies, and each ancestry research revealed a descent of the current (pagan) king at that time from Woden the “king” of the Germanic gods. Now, as an amazing fact, my own ancestry research of these early English royal pedigrees (which lineages had undoubtedly originated in their native Germany) reveals an approximately similar number of generations on each lineage going back to Woden. If the ancestry research for each “tree” was accurate, then it would imply that Woden was most likely a living person, dating from around the fifth century BC! As with all oral accounts, this man would have easily taken on mythical proportions within the matter of a few generations.
However, after the English had been converted to Christianity such royal pedigrees and ancestry research that glorified a pagan god-king would become nothing more than an embarrassment. It was left to Alfred the Great’s father, King Ethelwulf of Wessex, to rectify the matter. Ethelwulf was a truly Christian king, and some accounts even suggest that he was ordained as a priest at one time. Not to be outdone, he had ordered a variation on the ancestry research of the old pagan kings to be compiled. After the project had been completed, his new pedigree showed that the original had merely been extended. In the meantime, as a result of the new work, Woden’s ancestors had actually been discovered – and this achievement must have taken a great deal of effort and fact-finding on the part of the compilers (who were monks), even though it was indeed accomplished in a relatively short time! Ethelwulf’s new pedigree of the early English kings had revealed that Woden himself was actually descended from Adam and Eve! It may possibly be quite a relief for many people today to see that even in ninth-century England ancestry research had to be proved to be “politically correct”, as well.

(The author is a professional genealogist of 35 years' experience. For more information visit http://www.thechangingseasons.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=22&chapter=40 ) This series will be continued, and if you have any questions concerning genelaogical research in the British Isles, please respond.

October 1990. I was in Nashville, and had joined the queue at the Greyhound bus terminal to book a one-way ticket to Memphis. A group of men with long beards, long black coats and wide-brimmed hats were standing talking over against the far wall. Perhaps I was staring at them, for the well-dressed copper-skinned youth behind me said, "They're Amish. They won't hurt you". I laughed.
We started chatting as the queue slowly wended its way towards its destination - the window of the ticket office. He was Apache, and was returning home to Texas from college up in the north-east for a short visit. Apparently, the tribe he belonged to was quite wealthy. He knew that I was English from the first words I spoke to him, and he was very interested to learn about my country because he asked several questions about it.
As we got close to the window the white assistant was serving a smartly dressed black woman, and it came as quite a surprise to me to hear the assistant address her as "ma'am". I suppose in Britain we tend to forget the great strides that had been made in the Deep South towards racial harmony, but I have always believed that music had helped the movement considerably, for that was one area where black and white tastes melded early on. I had also found that "southern hospitality", good manners and friendliness were real here, and not merely the inventions of fiction writers. There was plenty of this in New Orleans and again in Nashville, more so than I had found in Massachusetts and California, where I had previously been.
The next day I boarded the Greyhound bus for Memphis. I didn't think it would take that long because they were close to each other on the map. I just did not realise that 240 miles separated them, and that it would take four hours to complete the journey. Oh, well, I settled down in my seat next to the window, so that I could watch Tennessee go by.
A Mexican sat next to me, and his compadre sat in the seat on the opposite side of the aisle. They began to chat in Spanish. I knew quite a lot of that language, so was intent on attempting to catch parts of their conversation. However, within a few minutes they had changed gear, and for the next four hours all you could hear was the drone of constant rapid-fire Spanish back and forth across the aisle. That was it! Four hours of non-stop machine-gun-style Mexican-dialect Spanish! The only relief from this was when we stopped for ten minutes at Jackson. I was one of the first off that bus! In the meantime I had attempted to concentrate on the Tennessee landscape speeding past us. But that didn't help. The landscape was quite boring - just flat countryside most of the way, that is, viewed from the road. We did go over a river en route, and I remember those wooden shacks that you see on many films. One of them had an actual tree growing through the middle of it, with its branches sprouting out of the roof. Quite a few had black men either sitting on the step or lying in a hammock, playing a guitar and singing along, possibly to a blues song.
Eventually, we arrived at Memphis, and I was in a hurry to get out of the terminus, so that I could turn the corner into Beale Street, and then walk along to Graceland (that's what I thought at the time, anyway). Oh, dear! I could not find my suitcase when the luggage compartment was emptied. I was told that there was a huge amount of luggage on this bus, and that they had passed some on to the next bus, which was due in around a half-hour or so. I thought it was quite strange because I did not see any others waiting around for their luggage. My time at Memphis was limited, for I had to catch the plane to Minneapolis at six that evening, and having to wait for my luggage was something I could have done without. However, I used the waiting time efficiently. I discovered that Beale Street and Graceland were not "just around the corner". In fact, I discovered that I had to make a decision between the two (no contest really). Graceland was a long way away, and from the information that I received the only way to view it and get back to the airport in time was to go by taxi.
My suitcase arrived on the next bus, and I strolled out of the terminus to find two taxis waiting. My driver was a marvellous old (partially deaf) black man. He was great! Like probably 150% of inhabitants of Memphis he knew Elvis when he was a lad (when he used to visit the black clubs, so he said). He showed me the hospital where Elvis died, and where he was first buried, and then took me to the airport, so that I could offload my suitcase (and while he waited he stopped the meter!). I had to laugh when he said that he loved Maggie Thatcher (She was still our Prime Minister at that time - just about) because she "whupped those Argentinians".
When we came to a stop at lights at a crossroads my driver asked me the name of the road that crossed ours. Generally, the names of the streets were on a signpost on the corner, but there was no indication of the name of the road that he had queried. When I asked him where the name was he pointed upwards - and there, dangling from a wire high above the traffic was the legend "Elvis Presley Boulevard". He said that it used to cost Memphis Corporation thousands upon thousands of dollars each year replacing the road signs after fans continually stole them as souvenirs!
Eventually, we arrived at Graceland (well, we could only park on the opposite side of the road), and I thanked him and gave him a well-rewarded large tip (and he beamed, saying that he will pick me up when I've finished if I want). I said that I'll manage, and he went happily on his way. He was certainly a great amabassador for Memphis, but I wonder if he really knew Elvis. I expect most of the older members of the community will likely profess to know him when he was younger.
Graceland was certainly well worth the visit. I was amazed to find that the house was much smaller than I had imagined, but then had to remember that it was actually meant to be a family residence and not some symbol of the King's vast wealth. While in the Garden of Remembrance I quietly thanked him for the pleasure that his music had brought to millions. Yet, the trophies room, containing so many gold and platinum discs, is indeed one of the most amazing sights. I had already seen some of Elvis' gold record awards at Nashville (Country Music Hall of Fame and RCA Studio B). When I questioned a member of staff about the number of gold discs that had been awarded to him, the reply was that they lost count after 250! All too soon I had to leave to catch my flight.
If you want to know something about my area - Hampshire in England - why don't you visit my website at www.thechangingseasons.com