RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Tickettyboo on Saturday 30 April 22 15:48 BST (UK)
-
I've tried searching RC but not found an answer, apologies if that's down to me using the wrong search terms.
I've come across a marriage where the party who knowingly committed bigamy (using a false name) was prosecuted a couple of years later for the offence (under their legal name).
As such would the marriage cert, should I apply for a copy, have been annotated in any way to say it was not valid?
If the time frame is relevant, the marriage was in 1939, prosecution in 1942.
Thanks
Boo
-
In Scotland, if a marriage is bigamist, Scotland's People will not issue a certificate copy. The record entry will have a stamp beside it indicating bigamist.
-
Thanks Kloumann, I suspect that the same would apply in England. Though FreeBMD have it in the index, that would have been compiled before the bigamy was discovered by the authorities, so not much point waiting for the GRO to come back and say they can't issue a cert.
I know the name of the church so will see if I can get a copy of the Parish Register - if that entry still exists.
Boo
-
I have a bigamous marriage but have found no evidence that any charge followed, and the couple married again a few years later.
He claimed to be a bachelor in 1947 (we knew he wasn’t), and then admitted he was divorced when they married again in 1952. Both register offices, first in Pontypridd (south Wales), second in Wells, Somerset.
-
thanks for the reply Deirdre784, I too have a good few where its now obvious the marriage was bigamous, but no-one seemed to find out.
This one I do have proof that a successful prosecution took place so just wondered about what happens where the authorities are aware.
Boo
-
Hi Boo,
Found this on another forum:-
No entry, once made, is ever deleted from the registers.
When a marriage is bigamous (and proved so by the court) then the entry is suppressed by the GRO, who will not send out a certificate.
However, sometimes these bigamous marriages still appear in old copies of the INDEX, which leads to confusion, because if you order that marriage, the GRO will say they cannot supply a certificate, but they will not say why.
-
Thanks Allan
I suspected that may be the case, its logical that any official govt organisation is unlikely to issue a certificate for a marriage that was subsequently proved to not be valid - but I tend to clutch at any passing straw - just in case :-)
I will see what my enquiry regarding the Parish Register comes up with.
Boo
-
I only know of one marriage record being made unavailable by GRO, and that relates to a same sex marriage from the 1960s ( I have a copy though).
In most cases certificates for marriages which later proved to be bigamous will be supplied without question. I have bought many of them when investigating such cases.
The question of whether certificates should still be supplied when they reflect an invalid marriage was addressed by the Registrar General in the 1930s, when someone tried to have a bigamous marriage removed from the records. The RG refused and confirmed that the record would stay, and certificates could be supplied. The wording of his reply was:
A marriage register entry is not a guarantee that a valid marriage subsists between the parties specified …. it is a record of the fact that a marriage was celebrated between certain persons after fulfilment of all the requirements of the law.
(Registrar General Correspondence (RG 48/278) 1932)
-
Interesting, AntonyMMM, thank you.
That doesn't look like there would be any sort of later note added to the record.
As the PR copy will be cheaper than the cert, I'll wait till I get that as I am mainly interested in the date and what the guilty party said about their age, occupation and father's details.
Boo
-
The one I know about. His mother-in-law shopped him & he got 4 months in the nick.
-
Hi Boo and other contributors,
A very interesting topic Boo, and I hope your further enquiries are reported back to the forum. I was just wondering whether such a refusal from GRO was governed by a 100-year rule - from the date of the proven bigamist marriage that is.
Taking it forward another step, one wonders whether a determined researcher could challenge (Proven cases) under the FOI Act?
-
Hi Copper1
I haven't applied for the marriage cert so don't know if the GRO would say if they can't supply the record
I do try to report back about queries I have posted, but this was just a general question.
I do have a newspaper report of the prosecution of the party who knowingly misrepresented the facts of the marriage (they were bound over rather than imprisoned) but my interest is principally confined to dates and names in the available records.
As such, if I get the details of the marriage from the PR, having established that the GR record is unlikely to be annotated given the restraints of available funds, I will probably try to get details of the court case to establish a timeline of when the bigamy was discovered - I don't know how long these things came to court - rather than the GRO record.
Boo
-
Thank you Boo, appreciate your update.
-
Hi Boo,
Found this on another forum:-
No entry, once made, is ever deleted from the registers.
When a marriage is bigamous (and proved so by the court) then the entry is suppressed by the GRO, who will not send out a certificate.
However, sometimes these bigamous marriages still appear in old copies of the INDEX, which leads to confusion, because if you order that marriage, the GRO will say they cannot supply a certificate, but they will not say why.
Such an action is unlawful the Marriage Act is very clear on the subject
The Marriage Act, 1949
"65.-(I) The Registrar General shall cause indexes of all certified copies of entries in marriage register books sent to him under this Part of this Act to be made and kept in the General Register Office.
(2) Any person shall be entitled to search the said indexes between the hours of ten in the morning and four in the afternoon of every day, except Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said certified copies of marriage register books, on payment to the Registrar General or to such other person as may be appointed to act on his behalf of the following fee, that is to say :-
(a) for every general search, the sum of twenty shillings ;
(b) for every particular search, the sum of one shilling ; and
(c) for every certified copy, the sum of two shillings and sixpence."
The fees have been updated a few times since then but every marriage entry contained within a marriage register has to be supplied to a purchaser on receipt of the correct fee, there is no legal option to withhold any entry.
Cheers
Guy
-
Excellent Guy, more power to the people and a challenge to answer for the relatively new (2021) Registrar General, Abi Tierney. See below the announcement on gov.uk.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-registrar-general-for-england-and-wales-announced
-
Boo, Ok it is Northern Ireland or Ireland pre-partition 1885/7 and the entries appear in both current juristictions, and certs could be now ordered from either Belfast or Dublin. However, to illustrate with the free ones, neither of the marriages have any annotation of anything unusual, despite prosecution and the policeman having asked 'the magistrates for a remand in order that he might get the certificates of the two marriages contracted by the prisoner'.
this is the 1st marriage 1885
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1885/10872/5970674.pdf
Marriage 27 Sep 1885 of Thomas Mansell, aged 22, Bachelor & Ellen Jane Collins, aged 22, Spinster. Fathers Matthew Mansell (Builder) + John Collins (Cloth-passer).
and this the second Bigamous one 1887 both under assumed names [the only one that quarter in the church]
Marriage 25 Mar 1887 of Thomas Douglas, aged 26, Bachelor & Mary Flood, aged 23, Spinster. Fathers = Thomas Douglas (Labourer) & Thomas Flood (Carpenter).
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1887/10789/5934783.pdf
13 Feb 1891 Recorder's Court & Police Court, Belfast, Ireland.
Ellen Jane Maunsell indicted with having committed bigamy by marrying Thomas Douglas Harvey in Drew Memorial Church, Belfast, on 24 Mar 1887, her former husband, Thomas Maunsell, to whom she was united on 27 Sep 1885, in St Anne's, being still alive.
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=BL_0001631_18910214_074_5698
interesting in that 1st husband conned her into original marriage by faking a letter that her soldier 2nd husband and sweetheart had been killed, then left her and apparently disappeared, turning up again 1891 - bottom right column under Police Courts rather than the highlighted bit. She pleaded guilty and was allowed out on her own recognisances a £20 bond for judgement at ten days’ notice. I never found a later report with sentencing so I guess she was also bound over rather than imprisoned.
https://search.findmypast.co.uk/bna/viewarticle?id=bl/0000434/18910206/169
I could view the images for £2.50 each online or order full paper certs on GRONI website too (as below) & although civil registration started much later then England otherwise the format and proceedures seem effectively the same.
-
I only know of one marriage record being made unavailable by GRO, and that relates to a same sex marriage from the 1960s ( I have a copy though).
I'd be really interested in this incident and the backstory of it. Was it two males and did one pretend to be female or the other way around?
-
Thanks for all the detailed and helpful replies.
Really appreciated.
Boo