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.

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" 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.