Author Topic: Widow on census but partner alive  (Read 2705 times)

Offline Viktoria

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,949
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Widow on census but partner alive
« Reply #9 on: Thursday 11 September 14 19:44 BST (UK) »
 Yes, similar situation with my G.Grandmother. 1891 census she is described as" widow," but her husband( second ,she was widowed and re-married) is on a lighter boat off the east coast described as "unmarried".
 Strange to say her sister-in-law( sister of  second husband ) is living with her  at 1891census.
 My grandfather sadly had adopted this man`s name and so we are not named after our proper great grandfather but this  other man.However his sister kept their real father`s surname.
 Surely my G.Grandma`s sister- in- law would know if her brother was dead or alive. It is a mystery.
                                             Viktoria.

Offline Sloe Gin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,392
    • View Profile
Re: Widow on census but partner alive
« Reply #10 on: Friday 12 September 14 01:27 BST (UK) »
What about the 1901 census, Viktoria, were any of them still around for that?
UK census content is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk  Transcriptions are my own.

Offline smudwhisk

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,864
  • Whiskey (1997-2018)
    • View Profile
Re: Widow on census but partner alive
« Reply #11 on: Friday 12 September 14 01:41 BST (UK) »
Whether his wife really believed him to be dead or not, we shall probably never know.  But when she married her second husband, she is stated to be a spinster on the certificate.  Very strange, as she used her married name, and gave the correct name for her father, so the surnames are different.  As she had a bunch of children, her new husband must have been aware that she had been married so it can't have been done to deceive him.

Goes to show that you should never assume that information on certificates is accurate.

It may actually be innocent and the vicar/parish clerk entered the details incorrectly on the marriage entry. 

I've a marriage certificate for a relative who was illegitimate but knew who his father was (its on his birth certificate anyway).  From the certificate, it's obvious that he provided the correct details but whoever filled out the form added the groom's surname to the end of his father's name.  Similarly, I've a direct ancestor and an ancestor's sister (different lines) whose fathers' names are completely inaccurate on their marriage entries, and these are from the parish records which they both signed.  In one case, the bride's mother was even present but nobody seems to have spotted the mistake. :-\
(KENT) Lingwell, Rayment (BUCKS) Read, Hutchins (SRY) Costin, Westbrook (DOR) Gibbs, Goreing (DUR) Green (ESX) Rudland, Malden, Rouse, Boosey (FIFE) Foulis, Russell (NFK) Johnson, Farthing, Purdy, Barsham (GLOS) Collett, Morris, Freebury, May, Kirkman (HERTS) Winchester, Linford (NORTHANTS) Bird, Brimley, Chater, Wilford, Read, Chapman, Jeys, Marston, Lumley (WILTS) Arden, Whatley, Batson, Gleed, Greenhill (SOM) Coombs, Watkins (RUT) Stafford (BERKS) Sansom, Angel, Young, Stratton, Weeks, Day

Offline barryd

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,709
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Widow on census but partner alive
« Reply #12 on: Friday 12 September 14 06:32 BST (UK) »
Embarrassment caused many false statements on birth, marriage and death certificates. My distant relative Raynie (Clifford) Castle wife of the of the late Robert Gifford Castle who died 26 March 1891, Dipton, County Durham gave birth to a her son William Castle 24 May 1892 and he was baptized St. Saviour, Hammersmith,  London, 10 June 1892. Father Robert Gifford Castle, a coal miner. From my notes on young William:

"William Castle born 24 May 1892. I year, 1 month and 28 days after the death of his father Robert Gifford Castle, miner, deceased. Not possible. William is probably illegitimate child of Raynie Clifford Castle prior to her marriage to William Edward Speer."


Offline Sloe Gin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,392
    • View Profile
Re: Widow on census but partner alive
« Reply #13 on: Friday 12 September 14 12:06 BST (UK) »
Whether his wife really believed him to be dead or not, we shall probably never know.  But when she married her second husband, she is stated to be a spinster on the certificate.  Very strange, as she used her married name, and gave the correct name for her father, so the surnames are different.  As she had a bunch of children, her new husband must have been aware that she had been married so it can't have been done to deceive him.

Goes to show that you should never assume that information on certificates is accurate.

It may actually be innocent and the vicar/parish clerk entered the details incorrectly on the marriage entry. 

I've a marriage certificate for a relative who was illegitimate but knew who his father was (its on his birth certificate anyway).  From the certificate, it's obvious that he provided the correct details but whoever filled out the form added the groom's surname to the end of his father's name.  Similarly, I've a direct ancestor and an ancestor's sister (different lines) whose fathers' names are completely inaccurate on their marriage entries, and these are from the parish records which they both signed.  In one case, the bride's mother was even present but nobody seems to have spotted the mistake. :-\

Could be a mistake as you say, but one would think that the curate (in this case) would realise at once because of the different surnames.  And the bride was in her fifties, so surely the natural assumption would be widow.
UK census content is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk  Transcriptions are my own.

Offline smudwhisk

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,864
  • Whiskey (1997-2018)
    • View Profile
Re: Widow on census but partner alive
« Reply #14 on: Friday 12 September 14 15:39 BST (UK) »
Could be a mistake as you say, but one would think that the curate (in this case) would realise at once because of the different surnames.  And the bride was in her fifties, so surely the natural assumption would be widow.

Possibly but again he may have just assumed she was perhaps illegitimate since some curates do include father's names when they are different and others, as in my example, make the mistake of including the groom/bride's surname onto the name given.

As to being a widow when marrying in their fifties, not necessarily because I've come across a few ladies who have married much later in life.  OK their fathers' surnames have been the same as theirs but the assumption isn't necessarily going to be that.
(KENT) Lingwell, Rayment (BUCKS) Read, Hutchins (SRY) Costin, Westbrook (DOR) Gibbs, Goreing (DUR) Green (ESX) Rudland, Malden, Rouse, Boosey (FIFE) Foulis, Russell (NFK) Johnson, Farthing, Purdy, Barsham (GLOS) Collett, Morris, Freebury, May, Kirkman (HERTS) Winchester, Linford (NORTHANTS) Bird, Brimley, Chater, Wilford, Read, Chapman, Jeys, Marston, Lumley (WILTS) Arden, Whatley, Batson, Gleed, Greenhill (SOM) Coombs, Watkins (RUT) Stafford (BERKS) Sansom, Angel, Young, Stratton, Weeks, Day

Offline candleflame

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,460
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Widow on census but partner alive
« Reply #15 on: Friday 12 September 14 16:04 BST (UK) »
I think I posted about this before but my widow kept up the pretence for a long long time. I had hunted high and low for man's death but he didn't die - he emigrated to USA first. Word down the family was that he wasn't a very nice man and treated her badly - they'd also had the deaths of 2 out of 3 of their children to deal with, so whether that was a fact we'll never know.
The ' widow'  remarried so was a bigamist and lived a long and very happy life with her second husband. 1st husband died a single alcoholic in America. Very sad.
The next generation did not know about this pretence until family tree research proved it - they'd have been horrified if they had known. Appearances were very important to this branch of the family.
North East of England

Offline Sloe Gin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,392
    • View Profile
Re: Widow on census but partner alive
« Reply #16 on: Friday 12 September 14 18:15 BST (UK) »
Could be a mistake as you say, but one would think that the curate (in this case) would realise at once because of the different surnames.  And the bride was in her fifties, so surely the natural assumption would be widow.

Possibly but again he may have just assumed she was perhaps illegitimate since some curates do include father's names when they are different and others, as in my example, make the mistake of including the groom/bride's surname onto the name given.

As to being a widow when marrying in their fifties, not necessarily because I've come across a few ladies who have married much later in life.  OK their fathers' surnames have been the same as theirs but the assumption isn't necessarily going to be that.

Yes, of course there would be people who married for the first time in middle age, but I bet that the vast majority of middle-aged brides were widows (especially if they had children).  So my opinion is  that that would be the natural assumption.

None of which detracts from the point I made - that sources such as this are not infallible.
UK census content is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk  Transcriptions are my own.

Offline smudwhisk

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,864
  • Whiskey (1997-2018)
    • View Profile
Re: Widow on census but partner alive
« Reply #17 on: Friday 12 September 14 18:52 BST (UK) »
None of which detracts from the point I made - that sources such as this are not infallible.

Very true point. ;D  Took us ages before we fathomed out why we couldn't find an ancestor's baptism because of the mistake on her marriage certificate.  Thankfully there wasn't another in the area with a different profession or we may have gone researching an entirely wrong line. :o

In fact we've an ancestor who appears to have married for the second time as a spinster after her first husband died, albeit that she used her married name.  Now this was pre-registration so can't be confirmed for definite that the entry is incorrect as no father's name.  Interestingly, one of the witnesses to the second marriage had the same surname as one to her first marriage, and not a common surname, so could well have been related.  Additionally, there is only one family of the bride's surname in the area and nobody had a daughter of that name.  Perhaps the most crucial piece of evidence was the age on her burial, as she was 20 years older than her second husband (so wouldn't have been a daughter from the first marriage), which, as with yourself , suggested she probably was the widow of that name and an error was made on the marriage entry.  As she, along with most of the family, were illiterate, I doubt anyone would have spotted it anyway.
(KENT) Lingwell, Rayment (BUCKS) Read, Hutchins (SRY) Costin, Westbrook (DOR) Gibbs, Goreing (DUR) Green (ESX) Rudland, Malden, Rouse, Boosey (FIFE) Foulis, Russell (NFK) Johnson, Farthing, Purdy, Barsham (GLOS) Collett, Morris, Freebury, May, Kirkman (HERTS) Winchester, Linford (NORTHANTS) Bird, Brimley, Chater, Wilford, Read, Chapman, Jeys, Marston, Lumley (WILTS) Arden, Whatley, Batson, Gleed, Greenhill (SOM) Coombs, Watkins (RUT) Stafford (BERKS) Sansom, Angel, Young, Stratton, Weeks, Day