Search for content in message boards

James D and Richard S. CASSIDY

Replies: 7

Re: James D and Richard S. CASSIDY

Posted: 10 Jun 2012 12:43AM GMT
Classification: Query
Surnames: BATES AND CASSIDY
Hi Cynthia, Your post is amazing. I may have some information for you. I have found two articles about Ursula 'Peggy' Bates and Irwin Cassidy's marriage in Reno, Nevada.
One of the articles is in the Oakland Tribune October 17 1930. I'm not sure if the article is on the front page of the newspaper or on the front page of the "home edition" section.It is titled "Wedding Told" and speaks of Irwin as a young dancer who aspired to become a doctor and who was also "unofficially" adopted by Alta 6 years earlier. There is a picture of both Peggy and of Irwin. The article states Peggy and Irwin were married August 7 1930. It also states that Alta wanted Peggy to delay the marriage due to her youth and Irwins studies but Peggy asked that her 18th birthday present be permission to get married. Apparently Peggy was also a dancer and the marriage would "not interfere with a trip to Europe" with leading dance artists. (????) Another interesting statement was that "it had not been planned to announce the wedding until after young Cassidy completed his pre-medical studies at St Marys College this year but the secret was radiated in the happiness of the young couple and the news was told."
The other article is in the Reno Evening Gazette on October 18 1930. It is titled "Here's Romance to Defy Movies; Culminates Here". It a shorter version of the Oakland Tribune article.
These articles bring up some interesting ideas. Was Irwin married when he got Peggy pregnant or did the relationship fall apart and his eventual marriage and family keep him from acknowledging his child. On the other hand if he and Peggy did get married why would he keep his child a secret. It makes me wonder if the articles were even true and only written to make the public think there was a marriage. The other thought that came to mind is if your Mom's birthday year is really 1932. Maybe it was altered from 1931 to 1932. Given the embarrassment of the times and the authority Alta had it could have been a real possibility.
Let me know what you think. Who knows, maybe I'm totally off base and acting like a wanna be detective :)
I hope to hear from you.
All my best.
SubjectAuthorDate Posted
ElizGracieDar... 8 Jun 2006 12:57AM GMT 
sharoncampbel... 16 Dec 2009 11:52PM GMT 
Cynthia Heth 13 Feb 2012 3:39AM GMT 
kyshann1 23 Apr 2012 3:33AM GMT 
sharonojeda59 6 May 2012 5:14AM GMT 
lewismeischke 10 Jun 2012 6:43AM GMT 
Cynthia Heth 10 Jun 2012 9:18PM GMT 
Cynthia Heth 24 Apr 2012 6:52AM GMT 
per page

Find a board about a specific topic

  • Visit our other sites:

© 1997-2014 Ancestry.com | Corporate Information | Privacy | Terms and Conditions