RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: Flemming on Thursday 14 March 19 20:48 GMT (UK)
-
Which name does a woman use when marrying after a divorce - her previous married name or her maiden name? Is this the same for all countries?
Thanks,
Flemming.
-
In the UK it is her first married name, unless she reverted to using her maiden name after the divorce. It should give information about her divorce on the second marriage certificate.
-
Thanks, Jebber. Do you know which is used for indexing purposes? I've got plenty of widows remarrying but not had a divorce before.
-
It depends.
For example, in New South Wales, in Australia, one of my aunts (still living, but born before 1920) has been married three times, two divorces. I will disguise the SURNAMES she used, but .... here goes :
Let's say she was born Dorothy DOT.
First marriage was to Mr DASH. She divorced him, he had deserted her. No children. She reverted to DOT, as per electoral rolls, however ::)
WHEN she next married, she had been cohabiting with Mr CITIZEN and they had 2 children together before they married. And when they then married she provided the clergyman with her details as Dorothy CITIZEN, formerly DASH nee DOT, and she signed as Dorothy Citizen... Two more children and all four births were registered by Mr CITIZEN at the time of these births, so they have always used that surname.
Mr Citizen left when the youngest of the four was 14.
The couple divorced, Dorothy commencing the legal proceedings. (This is prior to the changes to divorce laws in Australia in the 1970s that brought in "no fault divorce") The divorce was listed as CITIZEN v CITIZEN in the NSW Supreme Court, and the court papers have been archived and are available to public access at the NSW State Archives.
The file shows Dorothy as Dorothy Dot, formerly Citizen, formerly Dash, nee DOT, so she had reverted back to her nee name after that desertion and while waiting for the divorce to come through.
Dorothy next cohabitated with a Mr CITYSLICKER .... and when he died she moved in with one of her adult daughters (born CITIZEN, married Mr SMITH) and she then phoned me to say "oops, sorry, but next time you send me letter/card/parcel, please address it to Mrs CITIZEN, not to Mrs Cityslicker .... I have reverted to daughter's maiden name ! "). So she is currently Dorothy CITIZEN, even though her daughter does not use that surname and has not used it for decades...
OOPS, ADD (rellies following my threads say I need to add) that Dorothy had married Mr Cityslicker in a pallative care hospital several weeks before he died in that hospital.
In NSW it is still quite legal to become known by any name, so long as you are not attempting to deceive or be fraudulent etc ...
As to how those marriages would be indexed? Well in NSW BDM the marriage index is NOT available for public scrutiny for the first 50 years .... but .... one of her brothers is a retired NSW BDM senior officer, and another of her relatives is a retired CofE minister.
So, I have phoned both of these relatives. Yes, indexing ... each of the marriages can be indexed several times, under each surname found at the heading for her family name/former names and same for her husband ... and Yes, the officiating clergy or BDM officiating deputy registrar would have had no difficulties with handling all those surnames, they would only need Dorothy to show the NSW Supreme Court Decrees Absolute for those two marriages. It is the person who is marrying, they are entitled to be known by any name, so long as they are not deceiving etc ...
;D ;D I have a male relative who changed his surname to one he selected at random. He married under that surname ... ;D and his death is registered under that surname. His parents surnames are shown on the NSW marriage cert and of course, no explanation was needed to be recorded on that registration. :D
JM EDIT to add info about Dorothy's marriage to Mr Cityslicker... :)
-
Surprisingly, at this time of night, and after a bucket of collapso, I understood all that :D What a remarkable lady. Never met her, but I like her.
And it reminds me of a conundrum I've been meaning to put to the forum which I hope I can explain just as eloquently. Here goes (names changed to protect the not-so-innocent).
Jane BLOGGS' birth was registered in 1880 to parents who had been married for 18 months (i.e. she was born within wedlock). She married Joe SMITHERS in 1902 under the name of Jane BLOGGS. Their first born Henry was registered in 1904 with mother's maiden name BLOGGS. Joe SMITHERS died in 1905 and Jane remarried George GUMMING in 1907. Her surname is given as SMITHERS on the marriage index.
Newly married George and Jane GUMMING have six children. The first five are registered with the mother's maiden name (mmn) of STOPPER. Yes, STOPPER. Not BLOGGS. The sixth child is born after a move to a new home many miles away and is registered in the maiden name of BLOGGS.
Option 1 for reasons why: the five children with mmn STOPPER were not Jane's. Possible but unlikely. They were known in recent memory and one of them's birth certificate says the mother was 'Jane GUMMING late SMITHERS formerly STOPPER'.
Option 2: even thought Jane BLOGGS was born 18 months after her parents married, perhaps her mother had a fling with Mr STOPPER and this all came out later in life. Mrs BLOGGS did have an illegitimate son before she married. Perhaps she snuck off back to him one night. If this is the case, why did Jane revert to BLOGGS as a mmn for her sixth child?
Option 3: perhaps Jane's father wasn't a BLOGGS. Perhaps he found out later in life he was a STOPPER. But, again, why did Jane revert to BLOGGS for her sixth child and why didn't her sisters use this name for their children's birth registrations?
Option 4: Jane didn't want to admit to the registrar that she was a BLOGGS by birth so made up the name STOPPER. When they moved to a new town, it didn't matter so she used her real mmn.
Any other theories much appreciated!
-
Thanks, Jebber. Do you know which is used for indexing purposes? I've got plenty of widows remarrying but not had a divorce before.
It all depends on the information given at the time, she would be indexed with the names she had been known by. Marriage details cannot be relied upon.
For example, my mother-in-law who was illegitimate didn't even know her mother's name until I got her birth certificate (she only had the short version).
Quite correctly on her first marriage no father is named, then on her second marriage a father is named, only that man was a foster parent and definitely not her father. The second marriage is indexed under both her first married name and the foster Father's name, the registrar had assumed that was her maiden name, whereas her real maiden name was not known.
Anyone unaware of the truth would find it difficult to research her origins. A search for her birth of first marriage, with the assumed maiden name, would be fruitless. Although the certificate states she was divorced and from whom, the name was so common it would be difficult to locate her first marriage also.
I have numerous examples of misinformation on certificate, all making traps for us to fall into, but then that is part of the fun of research. ;D
-
In the UK it is her first married name, unless she reverted to using her maiden name after the divorce. It should give information about her divorce on the second marriage certificate.
Not in Scotland. On a second or subsequent marriage a woman would be listed initially under her maiden name with any previous married name added under “previously” .
-
......
Any other theories much appreciated!
;D If HE registered the births, then it was he who provided the information .... so perhaps ... errr ... ummm.... did he not know who he had married? ::) :) :)
:D if SHE registered the births, then it was she who provided the information .... so perhaps ... errr .... ummm.... I dunno ! ;D ;D
JM
-
There are times when the names are just confused. My great grandmothers maiden name was Heale on marriage certificate but on her children’s birth certificates varied between Heale, Hale, Hales and Aust. The name Aust caused some confusion until I found that her older sister also moved out here after marrying an Aust. They lived in the same township and I guess people confused them. She was 17 when she married so I doubt there would have been a previous marriage.
-
The simple answer is that any registration information is always recorded using the name the person "uses or is known by" at the time of the event. Marriage has no automatic effect on the name a woman has to use, nor does divorce, so it would be whatever name the woman was using in her life at the time.
Previous names may be shown (and historically normally would be), as "formerly x" but they don't have to be, and if a person is known by more than one name at the time of the event then "otherwise y", but again don't have to be.
In cases of divorce, previous partners were once named as part of the "condition" column - so it would read "the divorced wife of X...", but that is no longer the case.
One of the most common misunderstandings is that children were given a surname at registration - that was not the case (in England and Wales) before 1969. Children were never registered as "SMITH" or "JONES", only their first names are recorded. The surname used in the indexes is that of the parent(s), depending on their marital status, not the child.
-
In cases of divorce, previous partners were once named as part of the "condition" column - so it would read "the divorced wife of X...", but that is no longer the case.
I retained my first married surname for convenience after divorcing, and I married again in 2009 using that name. Under 'Condition' the certificate simply states 'Previous marriage dissolved'.
Having my ex-husband's name on there would have been a grim reminder of unhappy times, rather like being haunted by a malevolent spirit ::) ;D
Carol
-
Having my ex-husband's name on there would have been a grim reminder of unhappy times, rather like being haunted by a malevolent spirit ::) ;D
Many people feel the same, which is why the inclusion of previous names e.g. "formerly xyz" isn't insisted upon.
I think the change to just "previous marriage dissolved" for a divorced person dates to around about 1950 - probably in connection with the 1949 Marriage Act (but it could have been slightly earlier).
-
I've got a re-marriage - 1872 - where the bride has reverted to her maiden name, and "condition" is Divorced Woman. There is no mention of the previous husband's name (divorce obtained in 1871).
Oops, should have added: Divorced husband also re-marries, in 1873, as "Widower"
-
I've "got" one, fortunately not on my side of my research, but a "married in", where a woman, Mary, maiden name "Smith", shall we say, had a son, registered his birth in 1867, as "Jeremy Fred" and the certificate gives his father as "Harrison", and her details as "formerly Smith". We've never ever managed, despite diligent searching, to find a marriage....
Then mother and son vanish from the small area they were both born in!
After spending nearly a year following up every likely "Jeremy", Jeremy Fred" and "Fred" born in the right area at the right time in 1871, '81 and '91 censuses, with mother Mary, also born in the right area. I narrowed it down to one. But she was with a chap named "Peter Brown" in 1871, 81 and 91,in an area neither seemed to have links with, and again I could find no marriage. They had another son "Eggbert". Nor could I find Mr Brown in any censuses for 1861, 1851 or even 1841, with his consistent age and birthplace......
Time passed, and I kept worrying at it. I followed this family through to the point where young "Jeremy Fred" married - and had a son "Henry".... oops, back to one of the surnames on his birth certificate! Interesting.
Mr "Brown" in time also died, about 1899. He was buried ... under a different surname, "Mike Wilkinson", by "Eggbert" - who at that point, reverted to the surname "Wilkinson" ... and then, I found Mr "Brown" in the earlier censuses, under "Wilkinson", and with a wife and children....
So younger son at least must've been told of Daddy "Brown"'s secret... "Eggbert" married and his family used "Wilkinson" from that time onwards. Mary's son had married under his original surname... well, not quite.... he married under "Smith", but after that consistently used "Harrison", and of his four children, the eldest started off with "Smith", but adopted "Harrison, the next two used "Harrison", and the final one had "Smith" as a middle name, followed by "Harrison"!
I was hardly surprised, when Mary died, that she was merely mentioned, on "Peter Brown / Mike Wilkinson"'s gravestone as "also Mary, his wife, died 1900 buried Bloggsville" - no surname at all hinted at! The grave the stone was on also contained "Eggbert" and some of his family, so it seemed likely that "Eggbert" had decided - diplomatically - to avoid the issue.
I've never found Mary's death, under any name, myself, nor have I been able to pin down "Jeremy Fred"'s stated real father, Mr "Harrison" after 1871, although I'd tidied him neatly back to Cumberland, as the child of a woman who - yes, you've guessed, later had other children with, and adopted the surname of a man she was not married to!
I can, I think, see why Ms "Smith" and Mr "Brown" may have felt a name change and a move to a different area of the country was a good idea, to evade his legal wife and family ... even though as both of the eloping pair, , and young "Jeremy Fred" were totally consistent about ages and birthplaces, all through, once you'd actually ferreted out the connection, it was not all that difficult to check it all out ... but oh, the complications by people assuming different surnames and even first names..... I hated them all by the time I'd solved it all and proved it!
(All names have been changed, to protect the guilty)
-
I hated them all by the time I'd solved it all and proved it!
;D ;D Know the feeling. I want to go back in time and ask them 'what was all that about, then?' Perhaps the more people who do DNA, the more we'll find out and get our own back ;)
-
Fortunately, not my own line, but OH's. I've often said to him that my paternal mob were so considerate, hatched, matched and despatched in the same parish, with a not-too common surname, but some of his were really dodgy!
-
I have one who was married three times under her maiden name.
-
I hated them all by the time I'd solved it all and proved it!
;D ;D Know the feeling. I want to go back in time and ask them 'what was all that about, then?' Perhaps the more people who do DNA, the more we'll find out and get our own back ;)
Hello
I think the more DNA that is done, the more research we'll soon have!
I hear DNA has highlighted 1,000s of potential matches in a single sample ;D ??? >:( , for one individual to look into! Also having to bring all her family lines forward (not back into history) and some of the DNA links are found to be other family born and their (unknown) childrens children born and now DNA Testing, since she was born.
Our DNA
We have found a DNA link, but only to unknown Grandchildren of my Mother's Uncle's family, who had 13 children and many of them have had children and those have had children, who are having/ had children too!
DNA Still Requires Methodical Research Too
Therefore, DNA still relies on precise methodical paperwork research by both the parties e.g. yours and the other person's/s DNA being compared with, to see where the link/s might be.
I hear DNA'ers are having to thoroughly and methodically check the potential matched donors Trees too, for possible errors.
Researchers Burden of Proof Differs
Some online Trees are sadly inaccurate, a researcher's burden of proof differs, some will spend decades looking for one link, whilst another guesses that a Baptism or Birth must be the one, but not everyone Baptised their children either and many children died too.
Trees That Claim Children Who Died at Three Years Old Had Children
One recent Tree linked to a Birth, but thorough research indicates that child died at 3 years old. Therefore it was no good assuming the other research was correct, it wasn't. A child cannot have children before his death at 3 (three) years old.
With DNA you will likely still need a throroughly well methodically researched and documented tree or line using documents and manuscripts at each step as well and likely do more research to work out how and where one's DNA links to the other.
-----------
In answer to your original question, you have to be prepared to look at both/all surname possibilities when a person marries a subsequent time, obviously trying their surname at divorce first, or surname when they became Widows etc.
Childrens Birth Certificates
If you are working backward, surely the Mother's Maiden name is on the Child's Birth Certificate (1837 onward)? Most of the time the parents are both named and this should help you to narrow down the Marriage?
Three Marriages with Same Surnames Around Same Time Period
Don't accept or assume the first Marriage either, as I found 3 separate families in a 10 year period (19th Century), all the Birth surnames and the Mother's Maiden surname were the same, suggesting 3 separate Marriages, all using the same surnames.
Birth Certificate
Again the researcher really needs the Birth paperwork listing the parents names / surname and a methodical approach.
Coincidences
The harder I look 200 years ago to prove a link, the more coincidences I'm finding, so assumptions can't be made either.
Siblings Births
I'm discovering that searching for Mariners (who rubbed or might have rubbed shoulders with my known documented family), then not every child's Birth (in the Census) was registered from the start of Civil Registration in 1837. Siblings can often be found in the Census and their Birth might be registered (for possible clues).
Wills & Probate at Death
Don't forget Wills at an ancestor's death (if any listed on the Probate Registry) these help to build up the wider family sometimes surviving at death.
Being Stuck, No Marriage Over 200 Years Ago
After all this, my Father has said not everyone married, only a Feast to celebrate the Union (I'm stuck with a fully documented line to a Marriage of 1815 and a lot of side branches), but a 20+ year mystery continues.
In Scotland, the occasional Union was by Habit and Repute and one has to look for grave Memorials too.
A Dean family member said in the newspaper their Men Saluted to the Woman. His housekeeper accepted and agreed to getting together romantically as a couple and they were man and wife.
I have found the odd reference in 19th Century newspapers to couples, only marrying before death, having already been living together or having a family for some decades. Due to this being rare back then, a Marriage should always be earnestly looked for.
Happy hunting, Mark