RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Topic started by: ancestorsnoop on Saturday 19 May 18 07:04 BST (UK)
-
My ancestor's sister Ann Gleaves married James Wilson 16 Oct 1837, in St. Peter and St. Paul, Aston, Warwickshire, and married William Bailey, 21 Feb 1841, St. Martins, Birmingham, Warwickshire. When she married the second time she was listed "Ann Gleaves" a spinster. I thought divorces were difficult to get during this time period, and only the really rich could get them. Ann Gleaves's father was a brazier/tinman, and if I am not mistaken the family had factory jobs. So how could she get married a second time with her maiden name and be listed as a spinster?
She had a son Edward Gardener Bailey, born 21 May 1837 (according to his baptism record), in Warwickshire, and baptized 12 Jul 1841, in St. Martin's, Birmingham, to add to the confusion. It said his parents were William and Ann Bailey. On the 1841 census it just lists him as Edward Gardner, age 4. That is all I can find on him.
-
Possible sequence of events:-
Ann had illegitimate child, Edward, by Mr Gardener.
Marriage ( of convenience?) to James Wilson, which failed (or did he die?)
At time of marriage to William Bailey she chose to ignore the fact of her earlier marriage.
Edward absorbed into new family after delayed baptism but too late for 1841 census.
I have an ancestor who married a "spinster" who was already married. When he married for a second time, he described himself as a bachelor whilst his first "wife" was still alive.
Yes, divorces were not easily obtained, but why bother with the formality?
-
So how could she get married a second time with her maiden name and be listed as a spinster?
The information on certificates is only as good as that supplied by the people involved. The civil registration system in England and Wales is 'informant driven' that is the priest or registrar can only put what he is told. However there is a penalty of perjury if the information is wilfully false.
The operative word is "willfully",
From the 1836 Act.
XLI. And be it enacted, That every Person who shall wilfully make or cause to be made, for the Purpose of being inserted in any Register of Birth, Death, or Marriage, any false Statement touching any of the Particulars herein required to be known and registered, shall be subject to the same Pains and Penalties as if he were guilty of Perjury.
But I would think that the chances of being found out were remote, and I would be interested if anyone was charged in the courts, apart, possibly, from cases of bigamy.
Stan
-
William and Ann Bailey and other children here in 1851 https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/8860/WARHO107_2061_2061-0080?pid=9276103&backurl=https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv%3D1%26dbid%3D8860%26h%3D9276103%26tid%3D%26pid%3D%26usePUB%3Dtrue%26_phsrc%3DLTj7%26_phstart%3DsuccessSource&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=LTj7&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true
no sign of Edward Gardener He would be 13. old enough to be working and living in another household. Or deceased.
-
Thank you brentor boy, stanmapstone, Mckha489, for you ideas, information, and looking for Edward Gardener. I have been wondering about this for a very long time, and it is so nice to have other's thoughts and knowledge on the subject.
-
I have a couple that I believe both remarried bigamously... although I've still got to cross/double check at some point.
Born illegitimately with surname "S", his mother married and became an "E", producing half-brothers/sisters to that first born.
He married in the local church and used the surname "S".
A couple of years later, his wife turns up miles away and married a second time, again using her maiden name.
Meanwhile, her husband had gone across two counties to where his half-brother was living and, I believe, married his brother's wife's sister - but this time he called himself "E", which matched his brother's surname.
A lot of it went on. Back then, all you had to do was go to a different town/county and you could call yourself what you liked!
-
Thank you StanleysChesterton for your example and thoughts.
-
Another possibility is that Edward isn’t Ann’s child, but was William’s from a previous marriage? Or maybe an orphaned or fostered child from a sibling of William or even Ann. Although the baptism record implies that William and Ann are the parents maybe they saw it as a way of “formalising” the relationship with Edward.
I have several cases in both sides of my family where aunts or uncles, or even cousins take in an orphaned child
-
I hadn't thought about the orphan idea, thanks Gan Yam. So far I haven't found him past 1841, so I don't have much to go on, but I will look at the records that I have with that thought in mind. I can't find James Wilson other than the marriage either.
-
"On the 1841 census it just lists him as Edward Gardner, age 4. "
He is actually Edward Gardener Bailey on the image - the surname is just 'ditto' for all the family
edit - just for the record he was born March not May
-
She had a son Edward Gardener Bailey, born 21 May 1837 (according to his baptism record), in Warwickshire, and baptized 12 Jul 1841, in St. Martin's, Birmingham, to add to the confusion. It said his parents were William and Ann Bailey. On the 1841 census it just lists him as Edward Gardner, age 4. That is all I can find on him.
Did you spot that at the top of the next page on the baptism register is Thomas Bailey, b 2 May 1841, also son of William and Ann. So presumably the vicar entered the same surname and parentage info for both of them
-
Thank you lancsann for the corrections and Mabel Bagshawe for the observation about Bailey name on the two baptism records.
Did Birmingham have records on illegitimate children that gave the father's name?