My mysterious grandfather - Ernest McQuillan Hargraves

[majm]

Important Question 

Does the 1924 marriage give Ernest as a Divorcee Petitioner or Divorcee ?  This information is usually on the front page of the two page version,  where it reads "insert Designation, Residence and Condition of Bridegroom"  so it is the CONDITION .... Bachelor,  Divorcee Petitioner or Divorcee etc 

Or if you are looking at a NSW BDM certificate (as opposed to the original cert issued when the marriage took place) then you need to look at Column 4 Conjugal Status.

Or if you are looking at an Official Transcription, you need to look at the sub heading STATUS under the heading GROOM

Cheers,  JM

[Eric Hatfield]

I think it would be best to remove the name of the one born 1927.   It is a NO NO at RChat to identify anyone who may be living.

It seems it's too late for me to do that in the one post I have mentioned that name, but I would be happy for a moderator to do that. I'll remember in future.

Re the two marriages for Ernest....  how does the signature compare for the groom?

Now this is the strange thing. he has clearly signed the 1913 (Victorian) certificate (his and the bride's handwriting are clearly different to the Minister's. But on the 1924 (NSW) certificate, all writing but the Deputy Registrar General's at the bottom seems to be the same, including the supposed signatures of the happy couple. Then at the very bottom there is a statement dated 2011 and signed by the Registrar that "this is a true copy of particulars recorded in a Register in the State of  NSW ..."

I hadn't thought of this before, but that must mean it isn't a copy of the original certificate, but effectively a verified but nevertheless pretend copy - is that right? Does that mean the original is lost?? I am out of my depth here!

In the mean time,  I will see if I can find him on my 1913 NSW Electoral Rolls on a CD here.  CD has been misbehaving a tad recently.   I hope it will get its act together on this occasion.   

That would be wonderful thanks. I have tried to find him on electoral rolls, but found noting this early.

Don't forget to send a PM to RChatter Ros re the "divorce files" as well as the probate in case Ros can help you when she is next at NSW SRO.

Thanks, yes I have done that.

I must again express my great appreciation of how helpful people here are being. Thank you all.

[Eric Hatfield]

Important Question 

Does the 1924 marriage give Ernest as a Divorcee Petitioner or Divorcee ?  This information is usually on the front page of the two page version,  where it reads "insert Designation, Residence and Condition of Bridegroom"  so it is the CONDITION .... Bachelor,  Divorcee Petitioner or Divorcee etc 

Or if you are looking at a NSW BDM certificate (as opposed to the original cert issued when the marriage took place) then you need to look at Column 4 Conjugal Status.

Or if you are looking at an Official Transcription, you need to look at the sub heading STATUS under the heading GROOM

Cheers,  JM

As I have just been saying, it looks like it's maybe a transcript, not an original, though it shows all the entries in handwriting. Anyway, he is listed under "conjugal status" as "Bachelor". I wondered when I saw it whether that simply meant he was no divorced and therefore single again. Or does it mean he told a small untruth?

[majm]

the 1924 (NSW) certificate, all writing but the Deputy Registrar General's at the bottom seems to be the same, including the supposed signatures of the happy couple. Then at the very bottom there is a statement dated 2011 and signed by the Registrar that "this is a true copy of particulars recorded in a Register in the State of  NSW ..."

I hadn't thought of this before, but that must mean it isn't a copy of the original certificate, but effectively a verified but nevertheless pretend copy - is that right? Does that mean the original is lost??

   Where and when and who conducted the ceremony for that 1924 marriage?  The NSW BDM Registrar General was receiving the details from the licenced person conducting the ceremony.   I think your cert is based on that lodgement.   I am interested in getting you to the original records rather than just as far as the NSW BDM's records.... 

You say the 1913 marriage was in Victoria ..... perhaps then I will not find your chap on NSW Electoral Roll in time for the Dec 1913 elections....

Cheers,  JM

[majm]

Bachelor is the word used by the person conducting the ceremony, the celebrant chose to use that word, and would have taken a great deal of time explaining about the law at that time.  I would expect to find the word Divorcee Petitioner or Divorcee on the document.   

NSW Marriage Act 1899   Have a read of the (1 October 2012) posts on the following thread     http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=617452.msg4664084#msg4664084 as to what the bride and the groom were required to swear to about themselves.

Using the word Bachelor is actually pointing to the 1924 Ernest McQuillan HARGRAVES being a different chap from the one married in 1913 as Ernest Hargraves.   

I think you need to wait until Ros has got to the Divorce papers before proceeding much further.

Cheers,  JM 

[Eric Hatfield]

The 1924 marriage was conducted by Rev Hugh Paton at the St Stephens Presbyterian Church in Phillip St Sydney on 27 December 1924, with the certificate received and registered on 29th. Perhaps Rev Paton filled in their names rather than getting them and the witnesses to sign? Is it possible for me to post a scanned copy of what I have here???

Ernest says he was living at Jervis Bay NSW when he was married in 1913, and my mum told me they moved there immediately after the wedding. But my grandmother remained on the Melbourne electoral rolls for several years after she moved to NSW, so Ernest could have been in either location in Dec 13, I guess, but Jervis Bay seems most likely.

[Eric Hatfield]

Bachelor is the word used by the person conducting the ceremony, the celebrant chose to use that word, and would have taken a great deal of time explaining about the law at that time.  I would expect to find the word Divorcee Petitioner or Divorcee on the document.   

NSW Marriage Act 1899   Have a read of the (1 October 2012) posts on the following thread     http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=617452.msg4664084#msg4664084 as to what the bride and the groom were required to swear to about themselves.

Using the word Bachelor is actually pointing to the 1924 Ernest McQuillan HARGRAVES being a different chap from the one married in 1913 as Ernest Hargraves.   

I think you need to wait until Ros has got to the Divorce papers before proceeding much further.

Cheers,  JM

Yes, this is certainly curious. But I think they are indeed the same person. My mother's family stories were often wrong (I think she was just telling me what she was told), but she did report that her father married again and had another daughter, and the names of wife and daughter are correct.

I think Ernest may have been a bit of a rogue, and if he could obscure his past before 1913, adjust his age a little to appear younger, divorce his wife and try to avoid maintenance, and then have the gall to ask his first wife to look after the 7 year old daughter from his second marriage when his second wife died (which my mother also told me, and the ages and dates check out), then I'm thinking he might say anything.

But obviously we have to keep all possibilities in mind, and the divorce papers will certainly be helpful. I really appreciate the thought you and others are putting into this. I have done a lot of work and thinking on this, and have a lot of information, but you all are still coming up with new thoughts. Thanks again.

[majm]

No need to attach any part of the document Eric.   I am not doubting you at all.   What I am suggesting is that Rev Paton completed the civil registration section and sent that off to NSW BDM.

Civil registration for marriage commenced 1856 in NSW.   So from then, whenever a couple are married in a church, there is actually TWO ceremonies, usually running concurrently.   There is the Church service and there is the Civil component.   So when the couple are led off to sign the register, and the witnesses go along with them,  the two ceremonies become quite significant.   The church register is signed (sometimes several times, ie at least twice if a C of E service) and then the civil register is signed.     In some countries these two ceremonies are held on different days.   In NSW they have been held together since the introduction by the NSW Parliament of the civil component.

So it is unlikely that both the church register and the civil register are lost.   It is of course possible that the clergy transposed the information onto the forms for the NSW BDM, rather than have the couple sign these at the same time as the parish register and the civil register. 

Very complicated administrative procedure of course    NSW government adminstrative procedures are often so even today 

My CD for 1913 is NOT working ..... I will try other ways 

Cheers,  JM   

[judb]

Eric, the copy you have (NSW marriage) is, as it states - a 'certified copy'.  It is a transcription by authorities of what was on the actual original document.  JM is great at NSW BMDs and can often find the source of the actual record as opposed to the record kept by NSW BMDs.

The 'signatures' are not actually those of the couple, merely a transcription of the signatures, stating the names they signed by.  It is not an image of the actual record that they signed.  An example of this is my own UK marriage certificate, the whole of which is written by one person and the original signatures are not there.  The certificate shows that we signed and the names we used for the signatures but in the handwriting of the person copying from the original.

The record for the 1913 marriage in Victoria is an actual image of the register therefore it shows the actual signatures, as opposed to them being passed on to the BMD registrar. 

I hope I've made sense - perhaps just added to your confusion!!

This is a great search, most interesting! 

Judith