RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Jolene1987 on Wednesday 10 September 14 14:01 BST (UK)
-
Hi
Sorry if this topic has been posted before but I am little confused over some information I have found. Was it common for people to put down on the census that they are a widow even when their husband /wife are still alive and living elsewhere?
I have notice a couple of cases of this including one where the man married someone else but stated he was a widow on marriage cert but his first wife was living elsewhere with the children but she also claimed on the 1901 census she was a widow.
My G-G-G Grandfather married his second wife same year the first wife had their 7th child so legally he would be a bigamist as the wife was still alive and living a few streets away.
I am guessing this was because divorce wasn't legal or maybe not acceptable then in Belfast? Either way I find it a little strange.
-
I've got a similar one. although mine didn't commit bigamy. But it let me search a long time for a marriage which never existed and the registration of a child which I later found registered in the "Wife's" actual married name. Because on the census they were down as married and the child had the surname of the partner. Her husband was living in same town listed as widower with the older children of their marriage.
Although in England and probably no religious barrier to divorce, it was difficult and expensive then I believe.
-
Oh and I've got one where husband was transported for life and wife described herself as widow, then remarried after the seven years were up. Records show that the transported husband didn't die till a few years later, but she probably never heard of him again so assumed she was a widow.
-
It's all very interesting. It appears on my records that one child was born (the 7th child) and then a few months later he married someone else and started another family in 1884 declaring he was a widow. in 1901 the first wife has recorded herself as a widow on the census.
Also a daughter from the first marriage moved back in with her mother but the children were given her maiden name on the census in 1901 and then herself and her children had her maiden name in 1911 although the husband was still alive and filled in both census as being head of family and married. in 1911 she claimed she was a widow!
-
I have a rellie, she married for the 2nd time as a widow, her mother and one of her sisters were witnesses.
Her husband was alive and well and living just a few streets away, with his sister and her family.....
She had 3 daughters, 1st definately from 1st marriage, 3rd definately from 2nd, but middle daughter, well that is anyones guess. Birth cert says first husband, but by the time of the birth she had been with 2nd husband a few years!!!!!
On 1911 census, 1st husband is as said, living with his sister and states he is married.
She is livng with 2nd 'husband', who she did not marry for another 3 or 4 years!!!
And this is not the most outrageuous story in my tree.......
-
Marital status is more a half-truth than a lie.
The not-that-uncommon a scenario is that the couple splits; live as "widower" and "widow" or appear on census with a fresh spouse. When the first party of the "split" marriage dies, the survivor legally weds the person they shacked up with years before.
-
Just curious, but when you get married now and claim to be a widow/er do you need to provide proof that a previous spouse has died? (Thankfully it's not a problems I've every had.)
-
I find this stuff fascinating! I am guessing sometimes it was just easier to say you were a widow than admit 1) your marriage fell apart (esp for the women) or 2) you had more than one on the go lol.
-
A variation on this.
Family story that my GG Grandfather disappeared and was believed to have been murdered. He wasn't, as I found him subsequently elsewhere.
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.
-
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.
-
What about the 1901 census, Viktoria, were any of them still around for that?
-
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. :-\
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I have a case of this in my family tree and it threw me for ages.
With the help of people from Rootschat I was able to determine that the 'Widow' had been left by her husband. The husband had bigamously married another women and had children with her. I'm descended from his second family.
In my case what seems to have caused the split is his adultery and abuse. People on Rootschat pointed me to some newspaper articles which stated that he was once arrested for assaulting her. She was also taken to court for attempting suicide as a result of his abuse.
I'll never know, but I suspect that she knew he was still alive but that she agreed to say he was dead to anyone in authority in exchange for the pleasure of never seeing him again!