PDA

View Full Version : Married or not?



jeeb
27-04-2009, 3:33 PM
Probably one of the most asked questions on this forum is "Why can't I find a Marriage?"

As Genealogists this can be a real problem and often the cause of a 'brickwall' In cases of more recent marriages the most likely reason is simply bad indexing or incorrect information. Only recently a question was posed stating that a marriage had taken place in 1900 but there was no sign of the husband in 1901. The only suitable candidate was listed as unmarried and a lodger in a different county. However on deeper investigation this man was found to be lodging with a family with the same name as his mother's maiden name and the 1911 census puts the couple back together again with the two oldest children giving a birthplace the same as the mother's 1901 abode, thus the 1901 census wrongly stated that the father was unmarried.

Many women on censuses are listed as 'wife' yet after extensive searches no marriage is ever found, this is usually because a marriage never actually took place and she was living as a 'common law wife'. This happened far more than people realise as divorce was almost impossible for the the majority of the population but some couples simply 'never got round to it'.

Bigamy was common too. I have a case in my own family where a marriage took place between a Henry Boaz & Sophia Wollaston in 1844. I knew Henry had married in 1839 and I could not find a death for the first wife. On 1851/61/71 censuses Sophia was stated as wife. Henry died in 1874 and in his will dated just before his death he left everything to Sophia Wollaston, his housekeeper and probate was granted to Sophia Chapman wife of Cornelius Chapman nee Wollaston. This baffled me for quite awhile and I assumed, which should never be done, that Henry had committed bigamy. Then I found Henry's first wife dead in 1842 under the name of Bows so this baffled me even more as I could not find a marriage between Sophia Wollaston & Cornelius Chapman around 1874. It was not until I discovered Cornelius Chapman, married and with a family in 1851 did I realise what had happened. Cornelius & Sophia had married pre 1844 and it was Sophia who had committed bigamy when she married Henry Boaz. Note she reverted to her real name to claim her inheritence legally.

Pre the Hardwicke Marriage Act of 1753 vast amounts of marriages were clandestine, ie in secret. Many of these marriages would never have been recorded so are virtually impossible to find. In London alone it is estimated that around 6,000 clandestine marriages took place in Fleet prison annually beside many more in other parts of the country. The cost of a bribe to a less than honest Clergyman or even someone pretenting to be the clergy was usually all it took. Reasons for these clandestine marriages are numerous but examples are that one or both was a minor (under 21) and had not got parent's consent. One or both was committing Bigamy. None of the social classes seemed to be immune to clandestine marriages.

Jeremy

Waitabit
27-04-2009, 9:04 PM
Thanks for your post Jeremy, too many of us still search in hope of a 'Marriage that wasn't' or a person 'not on census'. May give a boost to some.

So many reasons out there for unsuccessful hunts. |nopity|

v.wells
27-04-2009, 9:20 PM
A very good post Jeeb! Helps put things into perspective when searching. Thank you :)

Mutley
27-04-2009, 9:37 PM
Oh Jeremy, I thought for one minute that by starting a thread you may have been asking for help. ;)

Not so, instead you are giving, as you always do,
very informative help to others.

Thanks :)

Peter Goodey
28-04-2009, 7:57 AM
It isn't true to say that clandestine meant secret.

In this context, clandestine implies evasion of the usual church rules on the advance notice of marriages ie banns and licences. These marriages were popular with the public because they were quick and cheap and not necessarily because there was something dodgy about the union. They were unpopular with the parish clergy because they didn't get their fees.

The most important point to remember is that the marriages were legal. To this end, registers were kept (except perhaps for the most down-market marriages). Some were scrappy but many were meticulously kept with more detail than parish registers.

Because the marriages weren't regulated, various caveats obviously apply to the entries in the registers and the provenance of some of the surviving documentation may be doubtful. However a great deal of documentation does exist. There are several published indexes and the National Archives collection in RG 7 is included in the outsourcing agreement with BMD registers.

jeeb
28-04-2009, 9:07 AM
It isn't true to say that clandestine meant secret.

In this context, clandestine implies evasion of the usual church rules on the advance notice of marriages ie banns and licences. These marriages were popular with the public because they were quick and cheap and not necessarily because there was something dodgy about the union. They were unpopular with the parish clergy because they didn't get their fees.

The most important point to remember is that the marriages were legal. To this end, registers were kept (except perhaps for the most down-market marriages). Some were scrappy but many were meticulously kept with more detail than parish registers.

Because the marriages weren't regulated, various caveats obviously apply to the entries in the registers and the provenance of some of the surviving documentation may be doubtful. However a great deal of documentation does exist. There are several published indexes and the National Archives collection in RG 7 is included in the outsourcing agreement with BMD registers.

Hi Peter,

I tend to disagree with you here. Clandestine marriages were generally conducted with some secrecy often by 'clergy' for a private fee and without prior banns or without a licence.

Pre Hardwicke Marriage Act of 1753 English Law stated a marriage was legal if both parties simply agreed and this was taken advantage of by couples wishing to marry in 'secrecy' This is the main reason this Act was introduced to overcome these Clandestine Marriages

There were a great many marriages performed in Fleet Prison, London which considered itself outside the Jurisdiction of the Church. These were known as Fleet Marriages but a record was kept of many of them.

Irregular marriages took place after banns or licence but away from the parish of either party.

A lot of 'marriages' took place, certainly in 17th and early 18th century that there will be not record of and these are what I am referring to as Clandestine Marriages.

Jeremy

Peter Goodey
28-04-2009, 10:13 AM
The normal genealogical definition of a clandestine marriage is one that took place away from the couple's home parishes and without banns or licence. They may well have been documented at the time and many records have survived.

The 1753 Act missed a trick by not making any provision for the official safekeeping of these records.

jeeb
28-04-2009, 10:44 AM
The normal genealogical definition of a clandestine marriage is one that took place away from the couple's home parishes and without banns or licence. They may well have been documented at the time and many records have survived.

The 1753 Act missed a trick by not making any provision for the official safekeeping of these records.

Sorry Peter, I can't really see what point you are trying to make here. Surely you are saying exactly the same as I did in a roundabout way. I was merely stating the fact to help researches that many marriages took place and were never recorded because of the manner in which they took place and were referred to as Clandestine Marriages. I did not say that all Clandestine marriages were not recorded but a great deal weren't.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines Clandestine as secret, surreptitious, underhand.

Jeremy

David Annis
11-05-2009, 2:01 PM
Would this consitute the old saying "Living Over The Broom"
I remember this being mentioned many years back, although not in recent times. I certainly have at least one relly that never bothered about getting married and I am looking up a family for a friend who's great grandfather made it his hobby, with three so called wives.
Cheers
Dave.

jeeb
11-05-2009, 2:50 PM
Hi Dave,
The saying 'Living over the broom' was a polite way of saying a couple lived as man & wife but were not actually married' It was more commonly described as 'living in sin'

'Jumping over the Broom' is different and folklore suggests it to have meant that couples merely jumped over a broom and they were married. This is highly unlikely to be fact but jumping a broom does have African origins and was performed as part of a marriage ceremony rather than instead of. It probably came to Europe with the slave trade and the custom was adopted by some Europeans but seemed to die out by the end of the 19th century.

Jeremy

georgeinspain
11-05-2009, 3:34 PM
Jeremy
Have you any idea when this 1753 Act was repealed? May help me with a problem I have.
George

jeeb
11-05-2009, 3:50 PM
Jeremy
Have you any idea when this 1753 Act was repealed? May help me with a problem I have.
George

Hi George,
When you say repealed I assume you mean was it abolished. No it wasn't abolished and basically still exists today with a few amendments. What is your problem?

Jeremy

David Annis
11-05-2009, 4:04 PM
So does the term, "Common Law Wife", have the same implications as someone "living in sin".
Cheers
Dave.

jeeb
11-05-2009, 4:29 PM
So does the term, "Common Law Wife", have the same implications as someone "living in sin".
Cheers
Dave.

Same thing really Dave, but a nicer way of putting it, especially if you were bothered by 'Victorian morals'

Jeremy