Widowed or What?

[peter nicholl]

I have several cases, mostly Victorian but going into the 1930s, where a lady is shown as a Widow, but there appears to be no trace of the husband's death. In one case I am quite certain that in the 1861 Census I have found both husband and wife. The wife is shown as a Widow, while the husband declares that he is Unmarried and even more helpfully, that he was born at sea. If women were deserted, was it usual for them to class themselves as Widows? Or, could their husbands be among the unidentified dead, in which case do we just put down "Date of death unknown"?

Peter

[ChristineR]

I think it was probably more socially acceptable for a woman to be a widow than a divorcee or a runaway wife. A deserted wife might also not want that known, as a matter of pride. And I think it was said somewhere else recently in this forum that if the husband was thought to be out of the country for seven years he could be presumed dead.

Christine

[peter nicholl]

Thanks Christine
Your comments mirror my own thoughts, especially if there were children. On your last point, was this a class thing? If the family was rich then I take it that money would be involved, so would the wife need a form of Death Certificate. In which case do you know how it was obtained? If the family was poor, I suppose that a piece of paper wasn't necessary. I had heard of the "7 year" rule, but was it limited to the man being overseas? I thought it might be just no trace, wherever.
As an aside I have a copy of a Bastardy Order against William Shilcock, dated 1821 where the woman was the " Wife of Thomas Rossington now ???? beyond the Seas" - right name, wrong tree, I have different black sheep:D.

Peter

[Guy Etchells]

No there were two seperate circumstances.
If the spouse was overseas for seven years then it made no difference whether the remain spouse knew he/she was alive or not, they were free to marry.
If however the spouse remained in this country then there had to be no knowledge of them being alive for the other spouse to be free to marry.
Cheers
Guy

[peter nicholl]

Thanks Guy
Was there a burden of proof on the remaining spouse? And, what did they enter on their Marriage Certificate as to Condition, Spinster, Widow, or what?
Gosh it's soooo easy to go off on interesting tangents:) .
Peter

[Colin Moretti]

Hello Peter

Don't forget that divorce was almost impossible, unless very wealthy. One of my ancestors had a bigamous marriage in 1894 to a long-standing family friend when her (first) husband was still living in the same district (Bermondsey). She was using her first married name again in the 1901 census, living with her widowed sister and one of her daughters; the second husband was still describing himself as married but with no wife in sight. Hubby no 1 didn't die until 1907, living with one of his sons.

I can't help wondering if this second marriage was done with the full knowledge of the rest of her family.

Colin

[Guy Etchells]

It seems the burden of proof falls on anyone who is opposed to the marriage rather than the remaining spouse.
Burn's "The Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer 1869 (http://www.parishchest.com/en-gb/dept_3270.html)" states the following (with regards to a prosecution for bigamy)
"The onus of proving the knowledge is on the prosecution and not on the prisoner. "

The Bottesford marriage register shows the following for a marriage where the first husband is overseas -

27 JULY, 1846, ASSKEW, JOHN, 63, WIDOWER, LABOURER, EASTHORPE, (father of groom) WILLIAM ASSKEW, LABOURER, MARY, GILDEN, FULL, HUSBAND TRANSPORT FOR LIFE, EASTHORPE, (father of bride) DON'T KNOW, (Witnesses) SOLOMON BROWETT, ANN HAIN

Cheers
Guy

[Cornish Maid]

Up until the late 1870s(?) the total number of divorces EVER granted in England was about 300.


Cornish Maid

[peter nicholl]

Thank you all for your help. It goes a long way to explaining why one of mine keeps popping up with different families. But did they always go through a bigamous marriage/s, or were they husband and wife under Common Law only? And if the second/third "wife" already had children did they just take on their "new" surname? Again I have a family in the 1901 Census with 3 or 4 Teenagers/ Twenty Somethings, but no Birth Records for any of them under their 1901 surname.
Thanks again

Peter

[jeeb]

Hi Peter,
I thought I would let you know about a query I had which puzzled me for a long time. Henry Boaz married Sophie Wollaston in the 1860's, this was a church wedding and is recorded in the civil registration index. Henry died in 1874 and left all to Sophie Wollaston his housekeeper, the wife of Cornelius Chapman. This difference in name puzzled me, especially as Sophie Boaz Widow appeared on the 1881 census. The will was proved by Sophie Wollaston, wife of Cornelius Chapman. Further research unearthed a much earlier marriage for Cornelius and Sophie. 1851 census showed Cornelius with another wife and family. Sophie must have committed bigamy when she married Henry as did Cornelius when he married the second time. It seems strange she risked calling herself Wollaston, her maiden name and not Chapman, to claim Henry's will. I have often wondered why she did this! Any ideas, anyone? Jeeb.

[Guy Etchells]

One thing is certain they were not husband & wife under common law at that period. Common law marriages in England were abolished much earlier.
Cheers
Guy

[Guy Etchells]

More research is required, if Sophie & Cornelius had been parted for more than seven years and they had no contact with each other therefore did not know if the other was alive or dead; they would be free to marry.

Questions I would ask are -
Did Sophie & Cornelius live some distance from each other prior to the "marriage"?
Was Henry & Sophie's "marriage" by banns or licence?
Did Cornelius turn up in the distict after the "marriage" of Henry & Sophia thereby causing Henry to name her as Sophia CHAPMAN in his will?

From the census entry she certainly seems to have been attached to Henry as shown by her using his name and calling herself a widow.
Cheers
Guy

[jeeb]

Thanks Guy,
Sophie Wollaston married Cornelius Chapman 1835 in Birmingham, I can find no children from this union. Sophie Wollaston married Henry Boaz by banns 1844 in Birmingham, again no children. Cornelius Chapman has children with an Eliza from 1849 in various parishes in Birmingham, I cannot locate a marrige for Cornelius and Eliza but I have to admit to not searching extensively. On 1881 census, they are still living, both born Birmingham, Corn. aged 66 and Eliza 54. The interesting thing is Henry's will where he states he leaves everything to his housekeeper Sophie WOLLASTON the wife of Cornelius CHAPMAN. She proves the will as Sophie Wollaston wife of Cornelius Chapman. It is unlikely she was divorced, so why is she not calling herself Chapman which she legally was? Jeeb.

[jeeb]

One thing is certain they were not husband & wife under common law at that period. Common law marriages in England were abolished much earlier.
Cheers
Guy
Guy, What can you tell me about common law marriages, when were they abolished and what exactly were they? Would they be recorded in any way?
Cheers, Jeeb

[Guy Etchells]

Using the seven year rule there was time for the couple to part and marry another between 1835 & 1844 therefore the second marriage was not necessarily void though it would be voidable.
In English law a person’s legal name is the name they call themselves there is no requirement to use a baptism name a name acquired by marriage or any other name if one does not wish to. Name changes are by use only and no other methods, deed poll, statutory declaration, announcements in papers are simply devices to show a change of name has occurred but are not legal requirements (even today).

I would imagine Henry named her Sophie WOLLASTON the wife of Cornelius CHAPMAN in his will to avoid the will being contested and any benefit lost by lawyer’s fees.
It is possible that if they had used Sophie BOAZ some relative may have contested the will as the marriage was dubious, even though it could not be made void after the death of Henry it would add complications.
Cheers
Guy

[Guy Etchells]

Common law in England is governed by custom and use; if a pratice has been carried out for a period of time it is accepted as law. That is how things such as Rights of Way are decided.
It was possible to use common law prior to the Hardwick's Marriage Act (26 George II., cap. 33) to allow a couple living together as man and wife to be accepted as married.
The above Act put an end to this and other clandestine forms of marriage in 1753.

As the marriage was by custom and use (i.e. living together as man & wife) there would be no official records of this occurring unless as a passing comment in some other action.
Cheers
Guy

[jeeb]

Hi Guy,
Many thanks for your answers, while I have you on the subject perhaps you or somebody else may shed some light on 'clandestine marriages'. I have been doing genealogy for over 20 years but I have never really understood what they entail. I know clandestine means secret but why would so many people need to marry in secret. Could they not afford to pay the church fee perhaps? Does this account for so many unrecorded marriages? Yes I realise over a period of time things get lost or were forgotten by the clerk of the time, but there are so many missing marriages. Was it something as simple as 'jumping over a broom' or the like? Jeeb

[Guy Etchells]

Clandestine marriages were those marriages that did not conform to the doctrine of the Authorised Church.
They may or may not have been held in secret, it was in essence another term for irregular marriages.
Except for Quakers, Jews etc.
Cheers
Guy

[Maud Jarvis]

I was interested reading this posting about supposed widows, I have an actual instance of this, which kept me searching for a gt grandfather in the wrong time frame, until I discovered that he had died in 1919, I had wasted a lot of time searching for him before 1885, when his wife, my gt grandmother Louisa Geoghen (nee Paddison), married in 1885 stating on the marriage certificate that she was a "widow"

My grandfather along with his mother, brother & sisters were in the Stoke on Trent workhouse on the 1881 census (Louisa had stated she was married) then in 1885 grandfather & his sisters were sent off to Canada, I then discovered that his mother had remarried as a widow in 1885, so, naturally I assumed, gt grandfather had to have died perhaps sometime in 1881 and before 1885, searched for his death until I was nearly cross eyed!! but then by sheer accident I discovered he had died in 1919 in Liverpool, so...did Louisa know he was still alive when she remarried , had he deserted the family, could he have gone to Ireland (he was born there abt 1841) or had they parted by mutual consent, had she perhaps left him????

I don`t suppose I`ll ever know the answer to that question,
so it just goes to show, that you cannot always take it for granted that everything stated on a marriage certificate is true.

[Shawnell]

I happened on this thread while browsing the site. I've been trying to find a marriage record for my GGG-grandfather, with no luck so far. The possibility of "an irregular marriage" makes his later claims of only having been married once in 1888, (to my GGG-grandmother in the US) make a little more sense. Now to find some proof. (Maybe in the process I can figure out the reason or truth behind some of the other fibs he told and were recorded on ship's manifests and census records). He immigrated to the US with his son in 1886.
If the marriage to the boy's mother was irregular maybe she was still alive when they left England.

Thanks for the possibilities
Shawnell

[apehangmom]

Okay .. I need a question answered. So these folks who had secret marriages.. what were there lives like.. I would suppose that its not like today where no one cares what you do .. But back then.. didnt you have to move to a differnt town as to aviod scandal? If you were secretly married and wanted to be with your spouse.. moving would answer your problems.
I guess its what ever fit into the society at the time. thanks chris

[PamG]

Don't forget it's not necessarily the husband that did the deserting. My great-grandfather apparently drank to excess. My great-grandmother kicked him out of the house and lived happily with her grown up children until she died. One of her children's marriage certificate shows that her husband was 'deceased', although he seems to have died over ten years later. I suspect having the neighbours think he was dead was preferable to the truth.

regards,

Pam