This could well be another sad story.
In the churchyard of the Church of Saint Helen, Grove Nottinghamshire, is this headstone for Louisa CROFTS (née Louisa LOVEDAY), wife of William CROFTS of Little Gringley. I remember taking this photograph with the intention, at a later date, of determining Louisa CROFTS' maiden name. I thought she may well be an ALLEN. Unfortunately I had to face my camera into very strong sunlight, as a result this photograph is of very poor quality. If at sometime in the future I have the opportunity to return to Grove, I will locate the headstone and try again.
A search online with appropriate dates reveals just one wedding for the district of East Retford (the most likely district). The March quarter of 1875 returns the following marriages:
HUTCHINSON, Mary Jane
So did William CROFTS of Little Gringley marry Louisa LOVEDAY? If so was Louisa already sick and likely to die? Is this the reason they married? Or was Louisa just unfortunate to die immediately after her marriage.
Or is this all just conjecture! Perhaps I will never know.
2006-01-13 A search of marriages after 1875 in the district of East Retford returns these for the June quarter of 1879:
EBSWORTH, Algernon Frederick
VERNON, Mary Frances H
Is this the same William CROFTS? Did he marry again? Interestingly the owner of Grove Hall at this time was a VERNON. Is there a connection?
This definitely is conjecture!
2006-01-14 Well I was correct about the link between VERNON and Grove Hall. Mary Frances HARCOURT-VERNON married Algernon Frederick EBSWORTH on the 24th April 1879. Certainly this couple would have had a rather different lifestyle to poor William CROFTS.
Read more about Mary Frances HARCOURT-VERNON and Reverend Algernon Frederick EBSWORTH at thePeerage.com.
I presume William CROFTS married Jane BOND. This may be of use to other researchers.
2007-03-11 I did indeed take another photograph of this headstone. When Juanita and Al Lewis visited the UK we visited the Church of Saint Helen at Grove and I came across this headstone again. Unfortunately we were short on time and the sun was positioned exactly as the year before. Consequently the later photograph is more over exposed than the original!