In Port Chalmers Cemetery, there is a headstone for married couple, Alexander Ritchie Buchan & Agnes Buchan (nee Findlay) – but only one of them was actually buried in that grave (Block UO. Plot 126B).
There are also three other memorial plaques naming another four members of the family, but again, only one of those people were buried there. In fact, of the six people memorialised on this grave, only two were actually buried in Plot 126B; Agnes and her son (also named Alexander Ritchie). So where is Alexander?
Plot 126B of Port Chalmers New Cemetery with Buchan family memorials
It turns out, Alexander is not far away at all – he’s actually buried in the grave opposite.
When Alexander died suddenly of a heart attack in 1896, only a few years after emigrating to New Zealand from Scotland, his young family were left in ‘very poor circumstances’. [See the post Inquests and Articles for more information.] The burial register indicates that the Congregational Church and/or their minister, Reverend William M Grant, took pity on the family and allowed Alexander to be buried ‘in the ground belonging to the church’ (Block UO. Plot 2):
433. BUCHAN Alexander Ritchie – Blk UO Plot 2 Class 1 Died 2 Dec 1896, aged 34 years, of failure of the heart, a fisherman. Resident of Mansford Town. Born Peterhead. Last came from Peterhead Scotland. Lived 3 years in province. Buried with written consent of the Rev Wm M Grant Congregational Church, in the ground belonging to the Church.
(Transcript of Burial Register, Port Chalmers New Cemetery, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand (1881-1929), p34)
A year later, another man, Robert Jones, who presumably also died in poor circumstances, was buried in the same plot. This time the order was signed by Mr Robert Bauchop – who according to his own obituary, was a senior deacon of the church:
467. JONES Robert – Blk UO Plot 2 Class 1 Died 17 Dec 1897, aged 77 years, of general decay, a bricklayer. Resident of George Street Port Chalmers. Born Holywell Flintshire Wales England. Last came from Melbourne Victoria. Lived 7 years in province. Applicant: Robert Bauchop. Buried in the Congregational Church ground – order signed by Mr Robt Bauchop.
(Transcript of Burial Register, Port Chalmers New Cemetery, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand (1881-1929), p37)
Plot 2 of Port Chalmers New Cemetery with the Grant family monument
In 1935, the Reverend Grant who buried Alexander all those years ago, was also interred in Plot 2. Over the years that followed, other members of the Grant family were also buried there before the plot was finally sealed. Interestingly, it seems Rev. Grant’s infant child was actually the first to be buried in the plot – 15 years before Alexander. Reverend Grant’s obituary mentions that he and his family had gone to Australia for a time (the time when Robert Jones was buried) before returning to his congregation in Port Chalmers.
3. Plan: U.O. plot 2 – W.M. Grant. William. Stone: William Mugford Grant for 27 years Minister of Port Chalmers Congregational Church, born 5 October 1851 died 12 February Emily wife of Rev. W.M.Grant born 8 March 1849 died 30 November 1924. Also William their son born Orange, N.S.W. died Port Chalmers 1882. Also their son Reginald James born 1881 died 1941. And their daughter Elsie Mary Grant born 1883 died 1961. Site: Plot sealed.
(Headstone Transcripts, Port Chalmers New Cemetery, p17)
By the time, Agnes died in 1939, the family had the means to buy the plot in which she is buried – directly across from the one in which her husband Alexander had lain for 45 years.
The other Buchan names recorded at plot 162B:
(son) Alexander Ritchie Buchan (junior), 1890-1944, plot 126B
(his wife) Elizabeth P. Buchan (nee Hendra), 1893-1968, Block NL. Plot 9
While researching some extended family members, I came across an unusual marriage.
Ernest Wheeley and Emily Marian Phipps were married in 1923 and their daughter, Cissie was born the following year. Sadly, Ernest died only a few years later in 1929 and Emily married the next year. Although a widow remarrying is very common and can be expected, what makes this case unusual is that Emily had married the nephew of her deceased husband.
Ernest’s nephew, Charles Meller – who was was roughly 12 years younger than Emily – was the son of his sister Blanche Wheeley and Joseph Meller.
Charles was the nephew of Emily’s first husband, Ernest
There has long been a list of ‘forbidden marriages’ based on the bible. Way back in 1503, even King Henry VIII had to request a special dispensation so he could marry his brother Arthur’s widow, Katherine of Aragon. In 1907 the law changed to allow marriage to a wife’s sister or husband’s brother but only if the first spouse was deceased. In 1921, marriage to a brother’s wife or sister’s husband also became legal (only if the first spouse was deceased). This change in law likely came about due to the dramatic reduction in population after World War I. The law was again changed in 1931 to allow marriage to an aunt/uncle-in-law or niece/nephew-in-law (again only if the relevant people were deceased). [source: Forbidden Marriage Laws of the United Kingdom] However, in this case, Charles and Emily were married in 1930 – the year before it became legal for them to do so.
By 1939, the couple had a son together, Ronald, and Cissie had taken the name of her mother’s new husband (and Cissie’s first cousin), Meller. A clue to the unusual relationship can be found on the 1939 register entry – upon Cissie’s marriage in 1943, her original name of Wheeley was added along with her new married name of Dickinson (Cissie used the name Wheeley when she married).
There could be many reasons for marrying a the spouse of a deceased family member and at times it was encouraged. It is impossible to know the nature of the couple’s relationship prior to Ernest’s death (without family anecdotes to rely on). A clue that this union may not have had the family’s blessing may lie in their address. Charles and Emily were on Hollemeadow Road, whereas the rest of the family seemed to live more closely together on or near Pleck Road (the other side of town). But, of course, this is just speculation on my part.
In 1901, Thomas Henry WHEELEY and Ann ROGERS had been married for 23 years and had had 8 children together. They were living on Dalkeith Street in Walsall – a row of terraced houses built alongside the Walsall Locks less than ten years before (in the early 1890s). Thomas was a ‘brown saddler’ living in “a poor locality” so life was probably not easy for the family.
Thomas Henry Wheeley and Ann Rogers on the 1901 census
On Saturday the 20th May, 1905 – only a few years after the census was taken – the family had ‘a quarrel’. Thomas who had been out drinking, came home and argued with Ann, calling her names. Ann, in turn, threatened to throw a saucer at him and Thomas attacked her with a knife. Their 18-year-old son, George Alfred, seeing this take place, struggled with his father and was subsequently hit on the head with some tongs [Not sure if these would be saddler tongs or coal tongs or another type). Ann had managed to escape the house during the scuffle and discovered she had been cut on the wrist.
Walsall Advertiser 27 May 1905 p6 c7
BEER, AND A QUARREL.
A saddler named Thomas Wheeley (53), of 91, Dalkeith Street, was charged with unlawfully wounding Ann Wheeley, his wife, with a knife, and also with violently assaulting Alfred Wheeley, his son, by hitting him on the head with a pair of tongs. -The police authorities agreed to withdraw the charges, and substitute charges of common assault only. -The story for the prosecution was that on Saturday night the man Wheeley went home under the influence of drink, and a quarrel, arose. He called his wife a bad name, and she threatened to throw a saucer at him. During the quarrel she found that she had received a wound on the wrist, and went out of the house. -The son’s evidence was to the effect that he saw his father with a knife, and struggled with him. He succeeded in getting his mother out of the house, but while he was doing so he was struck on the head with the tongs. -Dr Mackenzie-in-Thurm (house surgeon at the hospital) said he attended to the woman’s injured wrist. There was only a small punctured wound. It was not serious. -The magistrates sentenced Wheeley to 14 days’ imprisonment. (Walsall Advertiser 27 May 1905 p6 c7)
I find it interesting that “the police authorities agreed to withdraw the charges, and substitute charges of common assault only”. Who requested the charges be withdrawn/substituted? Common assault is a lesser charge than ‘unlawfully wounding’ or ‘violently assaulting’ [source] and so appears to minimise Thomas’ actions. Was the switch to a lesser charge because: a) there was a lack of evidence of more serious injuries; b) prosecution were more likely to secure a conviction this way; or c) the general view that domestic violence was less serious?
Thomas’ two-week stint in prison for the assaults seemed to have little effect. A few weeks later, the couple were living at separate addresses – Thomas on Cannon Street and Ann at 481 Pleck Road – when Ann requested a separation order to support her and their four remaining dependent children – Sidney, Ernest, Grace Hilda and Maria (whose ages ranged from 14 to 7).
Walsall Advertiser 24 June 1905 p2 c5
PERSISTENT CRUELTY.
Thomas Henry Wheeley, Cannon Street, was summoned for persistent cruelty to his wife, who applied for an order against him. -Complainant stated that she had been obliged to leave her husband because of his persistent cruelty. She had been married 29 years and had eight children, four of which were depending upon her. Her husband had assaulted her several times and was always threatening her. She had had seven pair of black eyes in less than three months. -The Chairman (to defendant): How many black eyes have you given her since you were married? -Two, that’s all sir. -An order for 10s a week was eventually made. (Walsall Advertiser 24 June 1905 p2 c5-6)
In 1895, the ‘Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act’ was introduced. It allowed married women to apply to the magistrates’ courts for separation and maintenance orders if their husbands had:
i. been convicted of an aggravated assault under S.43 of the Offences Against The Persons Act 1861
ii been convicted on indictment for assault and sentenced to at least two months imprisonment or fined £5
iii. deserted them
iv. been guilty of persistent cruelty so as to make their wives leave home.
v. wilfully neglected to maintain so as to cause their wives to leave home.
(Radford, M. T. (1988) The law and domestic violence against women. PhD Thesis. University of Bradford. Available from: https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/handle/10454/3875 (Accessed: 13 May 2020), page 38)
Ann applied for an order of separation on the grounds of his persistent cruelty and subsequent articles definitely paint a picture of an unhappy marriage marred with ‘persistent cruelty’ and alcohol abuse.
A coal hod for sale in 1904 – Thomas was witnessed to have struck his wife Ann with one.
Ann told the court that her husband had ‘never treated her kindly’ and that she had had ‘seven pair of black eyes in less than three months’. Thomas denied this and claimed he had ‘only’ given her two and struck her ‘no more than three times’. Ann also claimed that Thomas had hit her on the head with a coal hod – a claim supported by their 25 year old daughter, Blanche who witnessed the incident. Blanche also confirmed that her father had ‘frequently’ given her mother black eyes. However she also said that her mother had also ‘been under the influence of drink’ but this had not been for some time since “she has not had the money”.
Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle 24 June 1905 p2 c5
SEVEN PAIRS OF BLACK EYES IN SIX MONTHS –
Thomas Wheeley, saddler, Cannon Street, was summoned by his wife, Ann Wheeley, of 481, Pleck Road, who sought to obtain a separation order on the ground of his persistent cruelty. -Complainant stated that she had been married 29 years, and of her eight children four were dependent upon her. Her husband, who was resently [sic] sent to prison for stabbing her in the wrist, had said that he had done 14 days, and he would yet do 14 years for her. He had never treated her kindly, and a few weeks ago he had struck her on the head with a coal hod. He had given her seven pairs of black eyes in less than six months. Since he came out of prison he had continually threatened what he would do to her. -She denied, in cross-examination by defendant that he had not struck her more than three times since they had been married. -In reply to a question from the Bench, defendant said he had only given his wife two black eyes, and she denied that she had been locked up for being drunk. -Blanche Marston, daughter, also spoke to her father’s ill-treatment of her mother, and said that he had frequently given her black eyes; she did not know how many. She saw him strike her with the coal hod. She admitted that her mother had been under the influence of drink, but not for some time. “She has not had the money,” she added, amid laughter. Since her father came back from gaol his language had been unbearable. -Complainant was re-called, and asked for 10s. a week. -An order was made for that amount. (Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle 24 June 1905 p2 c5)
Despite the 1895 act, it’s clear that domestic violence was still not regarded as seriously as it should. Thomas’ seemingly casual, or even blasé attitude regarding the violence he actually admits to inflicting on his wife indicates that beating your wife was largely seen as ‘fine’ depending on its regularity or severity. A woman’s options were very limited and there were many reasons a wife would remain with an abusive husband – whether financial, emotional or social.
For whatever reasons, Thomas and Ann were together again by the 1911 census.
Wheeley family on the 1911 census (130 Bridgeman Street)
I was completely unaware of the events of 1905 until recently. Thomas and Ann appeared in every census together since their marriage in 1878 (1881-1911) so I didn’t expect there to have been such a rift. We like or want to believe that the families we research lived peacefully together despite their often difficult lives. My discovery of these newspaper articles reminded me this is often not the case.
The census is only a ‘snapshot’ every ten years – it’s important to remember this. A lot can happen between these ‘snapshots’. Just as living at the same address two censuses in a row doesn’t always mean they’d actually been there all that time, a family simply living together does not always mean their lives were harmonious all that time.
Not only did she die at just 3 years of age, but she was buried under the wrong name!
To be fair, this error is likely confined to the burial register – a slip up by the rector confusing the names of two sisters – but I can’t help but feel a little indignation for the wee lass.
Eva’s older sister, Ada Rogers was born in 1859 and was only 18 years old when she died in 1877.
Baptism of Ada Rogers 1859Burial of Ada Rogers in 1877
Eva Rogers was born two years after her sister in 1861 and baptised in November at Newport, Shropshire, England.
Baptism of Eva Rogers 1861
As she was born and died between censuses, I only know of Eva’s existence due to trawling the Newport, Shropshire parish records on FindMyPast. But still, her burial did not appear in the burial records. However, there was a burial of ‘another’ Ada Rogers in 1865. I already knew Eva’s sister, Ada (who did appear on censuses) died in 1877 so who was this other Ada? At first I thought there was a transcription error but the record clearly showed ‘Ada Rogers’.
Burial of Eva Rogers (mistranscribed as Ada) 1865
Fortunately, Eva was registered under the correct name as can be seen in the GRO index.
The surname, death place and age at death match so I can surmise the rector simply had ‘a bit of a slip-up’ at the time of recording in the burial register. I feel glad that I was able to uncover the mistake and reestablish her place in the family tree.
I previously wrote about the brief marriage between William Henry Marston and Blanche Emma Wheeley in the post, Wheeley Interesting. I have just discovered that five years after their unhappy relationship broke down, there was a development…
Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle, 2 June 1906 , p3 c6
Basically, the amount of support Marston had to pay Blanche had been dropped to 7s.6d (approximately £29.46 in today’s money) [The wording makes it unclear whether this happened in July 1901 or July 1906]. However, Marston was now complaining that he shouldn’t have to pay support to his ex-wife at all, since she was living with another man.
…It was now alleged that defendant was living with Joseph Mellor in Moat Road. -Defendant did not appear, and Sergeant Haycock stated that when he served the summons she admitted in the presence of Mellor that she was co-habiting with him, and said she should not contest the case. -Mrs. Hargreaves, of Manor Road, sister of Mellor, stated that the latter and Mrs. Marston had been living together as man and wife for three or four months…
The new relationship may have come to his attention through Blanche being heavily pregnant with her eldest son, Joseph, who was born only a month after the article appeared. He and his brother, Charles appear with their parents on the 1911 census – still living in Moat Road, Walsall.
The Meller/Marston family on the 1911 census – 135 Moat Rd, Walsall
Blanche and Joseph had 4 children (one who died as an infant) before they were finally wed in 1913. These children were recorded under the surname Marston as that was still Blanche’s legal name, but the parentage was made clear by also including the name, Mellor. After their marriage, the couple had 4 more children, although one died when only a few months old. By 1939, all the children had dropped the ‘Marston’ from their name and used only ‘Mellor/Meller’.
Since divorce at that time was unlikely, and remarriage was illegal with a spouse still living, I presumed William must have died. He was still alive in 1911, living with his new ‘wife’ and son, Percival William Marston, but there was no death record before 1913.
William Henry Marston with his new family on the 1911 census – 49 Charlotte St, Walsall
William & Lizzie listed themselves as married on the 1911 census but there is no trace of a marriage between them. [Intriguingly, there is a marriage in 1911 of a ‘Percy W Marston’ to a ‘Lizzie Jackson’ in Southwell district, Nottinghamshire but an appropriate person with this name can actually be traced through the censuses. Also, the surname of Percival’s mother is given as Mitchell in the birth indexes.] It turns out, William and his family left England for South Africa in June 1913! They returned in 1919 for a few years before leaving permanently in 1921.
I don’t think it’s mere coincidence that Blanche and Joseph were married in July 1913. The expense alone meant divorce was unobtainable for the working class at this time. With Blanche’s ex-husband out of the country, they may have considered it their opportunity to finally marry (albeit illegally). The couple were still together in 1939 so I like to think Blanche did get that happy ending after all (at least for a while!).
