PDA

View Full Version : Could this be Bigamy..



valg
04-03-2010, 12:21 AM
Hi Members, I tossed up whether to put this in brickwalls but thought is may be better to put in here and let all you super sleuths give me your thoughts on this.
It starts with a marriage for my G Aunt Eliza Ravenscroft born
Manchester 1849-parents John and Martha Ravenscroft
In 1868 Eliza marries a widower John Ashworth he is a lot older, he is 27 yrs her senior, they have 2 daughters Mary Ann 1868 and Kate 1871 who died the same year
Eliza is found on the 1871 census with John Ashworth and their 2 daughters, her father John and brother William are also living with them.
I could find no sign of them in 1881.
Recently I applied for my G Gran Martha Ravenscroft's death cert, it is noted that the informant is E.Salthouse daughter, as the only daughter with the initial e was Eliza I decided to backtrack from the cert and sure enough found a marriage cert for Eliza to a Charles B salthouse, Eliza was listed as Hibbert and a widow..
I started by ordering the 3 marriage certificates, I received the last one yest to Timothy Hibbert, now if this is correct and I have double and triple checked census for other Eliza’s, I think she simple remarried without divorcing John Ashworth.
I checked Eliza’s born with 3 yrs either side of ours in Manchester or close, the only other is a Eliza Ravenscroft born Woucestershire her parents are Seth and Mary, not even close.
I checked marriages for an Eliza Ravenscroft between 1861-1873, I used these yrs as Eliza states she is a spinster on the 1873 marriage to Hibbert. there are 4 inc ours, the other 2 are spouses Jones and Simcock.
Now we def know that the Eliza on the Hibbert and Salthouse certificates are the same person, yet on the Hibbert certificate it states that Eliza made her mark X yet she signed the Salthouse one, on the Salthouse one she says her father is John Ravenscroft-fitter on the Hibbert one she says her father is John Ravenscroft-tanner?- now this could simply be a transcript era and it could have supposed to read turner, or did she change the details a little to try to avoid a connection being made between her marriage to Ashworth 5 yrs previous, on the Salthouse she is a widow on the Hibbert she is a spinster.
Eliza had 2 daughters to John Ashworth, Mary Ann and Kate, there is a death record for Kate, born and died 1871, but again no record for a Mary Ann Ashworth after 1871.
Move ahead to the 1881 census, Eliza has only married Charles Salthouse weeks before, they are living in Manchester, they are all listed as Salthouse, but when you investigate and separate the children via births, Charles Salthouse first marriage, and 91 census it breaks down to Charles 2 children Elizabeth and John Salthouse, Eliza’s 2 children by Hibbert -John and Albert and 1 more, Mary Ann, who has to be the Mary Ann Ashworth, age and birth place fit exactly.
I am quite sure that John Ashworth can be found on later census, there is a John Ashworth living with a brother and the brothers family on the 1881 census, he fits perfectly, born Yorkshire 1822, and again on the 1891 census as a boarder, he is listed as widow on both census’s
All 3 marriages were performed in churches, this would not have been allowed if she had divorced.
Any input would be appreciated
Val :willy_nilly:

louisa maud
04-03-2010, 8:45 AM
Hi Val
It is quite possible bigamous marriages went on, I have 2 that I have traced and even more strangely one woman concerned is listed twice in deaths, under both married names, in both cases the husbands were very much alive, so it did happen, also divorce in those days didn’t happen often either unless you were upper class.

LM

Jan1954
04-03-2010, 8:54 AM
Hello Val,

Back in the 19th century, divorce was extremely expensive and quite often only undertaken by the upper classes, as they were the only ones who could afford it. Therefore, there are many instances of when a couple went their different ways, only to marry other people without the benefit of divorce.

Remember, the minister just went by what he was told, so if one party said that they were widowed, he would not necessarily challenge that.

Signatures: An X may have been used if one party did not want to appear better than the other party if the latter were unable to read and write. But then later, when circumstances change, a signature can suddenly appear!

Also, regional variations of accent were more prevalent than they are now and so the parish clerk may have misheard the father's occupation or mistranscribed it. There are so many ifs, buts and maybes!

Have you traced the grooms in the censuses to see what became of them? Oops! Just re-read your post and see that you have traced John Ashworth forward. Both he and Eliza as widows, eh? Sounds like a mutual understanding to me. :)

valg
05-03-2010, 1:45 AM
Thanks guys, it helps to have a bit of input, you confirmed what I think, naughty Eliza...
Just to think if I hadn't ordered my G Grans death cert her little secret may have gone undiscovered, there was a big age difference between Eliza and her first spouse, this may have eventually led to the break down, maybe Eliza just found herself a younger man !!!!
On her second marriage she noted herself as spinster, her 3rd marriage was widow, which she was that time.