I'm looking at the marriage record for a Charles Bundy Lark. The information from Family Search reports the following:

Name    Charles Bunell Lark
Spouse's Name   Rebecca Moore
Event Date  03 Mar 1839
Event Place     North Walsham, Norfolk, England
Father's Name   Benjamin Lark
Spouse's Father's Name  Matthew Lark

According to this, Rebecca Moore's father is Matthew Lark. I believe I know who Charles Bunell Lark is, and I can't find any family relation of his that is Matthew Lark. Something about this just seems odd, and I don't quite understand it. Can anyone enlighten me on it? Thanks!

  • 2
    Have you looked for a Moore-Lark marriage, to evaluate if Rebecca was previously married?
    – bgwiehle
    Sep 2 '15 at 1:14
  • Not yet. It is one thing I considered, but thought unlikely. Still, I'll have to give it a shot... Sep 2 '15 at 1:15

I know you have solved this, but this is my rationale.

The most likely solution is that it is a transcription error, and Matthew's surname should have been transcribed as Moore. As it is so easy to check the original record on this one, do not rely on FamilySearch's transcription. You can view the original entry here on FamilySearch.

So clearly not a transcription error. However...

Checking the original record reveals a key piece of information not on the transcription you were relying on. Rebecca was a widow.

You can now revise your most likely solution - this was Rebecca's second marriage. You can now commence research, knowing that Rebecca was probably born a Lark, and first married a Moore.

  • How did you find the original record? I tried for some time to do that... In any case, thanks! Sep 2 '15 at 11:35
  • @PearsonArtPhoto It isn't always easy to see how to chase down the (possible) originals when viewing an indexed record on FamilySearch. In the past, I've written self-answered questions to show other people how to use an index. If the record type you seek isn't covered by another question already on the site, go for it -- ask a new question so other users can benefit.
    – Jan Murphy
    Sep 2 '15 at 14:50
  • 1
    @PearsonArtPhoto I knew that FamilySearch have a large number of Norfolk records, and not being impressed (generally) by FS transcriptions I ususually jump to the images straight away. For Norfolk, the registers in "England, Norfolk, Parish Registers (County Record Office), 1510-1997" are not completely transcribed. The entry you linked to is in "England Marriages, 1538–1973". See the various Norfolk collections here: familysearch.org/search/collection/list/…
    – Harry V.
    Sep 2 '15 at 20:05

It turns out that @bgwiehle was right. Namely, she was born a Lark(e), married George Moore, who died, and then re-married Charles Lark. Slightly confusing, but it would have been vastly more confusing without this piece of documentation. And indeed, her father's name is Mathew. Charles, as it turns out, is her 1st cousin.

Some of the evidence includes:

Sometimes the document is exactly right as written, you just have to suspend disbelief and you'll find the right answer...

  • 1
    I think you should include sources that support your answer. Did you find a birth record and/or a marriage record, or something else?
    – PolyGeo
    Sep 2 '15 at 2:40
  • I've included the sources that I found that proved this. I also found a birth record for her, but that isn't really relevant to the question, so... Sep 2 '15 at 11:42
  • 2
    What "birth record" do you have from this period? Do you have a baptism register? If your question is whether Rebecca is the daughter of Matthew Lark, how is a birth record not relevant to the question? You're trying to establish identity -- all the evidence is relevant.
    – Jan Murphy
    Sep 2 '15 at 14:54
  • Good points, I've added the baptism record (Mistakenly called birth). Sep 2 '15 at 15:05
  • @PearsonArtPhoto I just wanted to make sure you recognize that the three records you linked to all come from different record sets on FamilySearch - England Marriages, Norfolk Bishop's Transcripts, and Norfolk Parish Registers. Also, I corrected the statement of "death record" to "burial record" - as with birth vs baptism an important distinction.
    – Harry V.
    Sep 2 '15 at 20:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.