Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Last revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
| butler_morres_and_lodge_families [2017/09/01 11:47] – judith | butler_morres_and_lodge_families [2018/09/18 14:35] – judith | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| It's an intriguing tale, yet one that raises a number of red flags. | It's an intriguing tale, yet one that raises a number of red flags. | ||
| - | While it was normal for Victorian-era husbands to write on behalf of wives, there is no mention of Elizabeth (like Sir John Conroy’s wife) having any knowledge of her husband’s intervention. In this case, a complication is that Elizabeth Marks was not literate, as indicated by her signing her marriage certificate with a cross.((copy in possession of author)) | + | While it was normal for Victorian-era husbands to write on behalf of wives, there is no mention of Elizabeth (like Sir John Conroy’s wife) having any knowledge of her husband’s intervention. In this case, a complication is that Elizabeth Marks was not literate, as indicated by her signing her marriage certificate with a cross. As well, the dates Robert M-P gave for Elizabeth and Alexander’s deaths are incorrect (cf. BDM) so he is not always reliable. His version, with some added errors such as Sarah and Andrew marrying, is repeated on Ancestory.com.((https:// |
| The verdict? Most likely, Elizabeth Marks had nothing to do with the Murray-Priors or Butlers, though possibly an affair that resulted in a baby did occur. | The verdict? Most likely, Elizabeth Marks had nothing to do with the Murray-Priors or Butlers, though possibly an affair that resulted in a baby did occur. | ||