1
The Common Room / Re: GRO digital images £2.50
« on: Wednesday 01 May 24 21:21 BST (UK) »
Thank you, Antony, I missed that.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
GRO indexes are publicly available ( up to the most recent quarter) but again GRO have decided to restrict the coverage of their own on-line indexes, even though they have previously made the same data available through other means ( e.g. Ancestry and FindMyPast).
Not strictly prohibited as such - what the Act actually said (s2) was ...
"That all marriages which shall hereafter be celebrated between persons within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity shall be absolutely null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever"
So it made any such marriages automatically void - but that didn't prevent them from happening, and quite regularly. My 3x G Grandfather married his widows younger sister (in 1840). They went to a neighbouring parish for the ceremony, but family members were witnesses and I doubt there was much attempt at any secrecy about it.
Despite the 1835 Act It is a fairly common thing to find in families at that time, and no offence was committed by anyone doing it.
In instances I have come across, although the second marriages took place at some distance, the couples returned home afterwards. Their families and communities must have been well aware that the two wives were sisters. I don't think everyone disapproved, or even felt strongly about it.
Thanks for the replies. They confirm my assumption that only the 1911 and 1921 censuses reveal the handwriting of the head of household, or in the examples I have in mind, the handwriting of the individuals listed.