RootsChat.Com

Quote from: jbml on Thursday 23 March 23 17:29 GMT (UK)

Quote from: jbml on Tuesday 21 March 23 22:12 GMT (UK)

Well ... I am a lawyer ... and yes, bigamous marriages are invalid, because the bigamist lacked capacity to marry (being already married).

It is not strictly speaking necessary to obtain an annulment ... but in practical terms, if the wronged party does not wish to risk complications should they attempt to marry on a subsequent occasion, an annulment (that is to say, a judicial ruling that the purported marriage was null and void) is always worth having.

Did you want to put any text below this quote box?

No ... I didn't even want this text box in the first place. I was just editing a minor typo in the original post: no idea why it produced this!

when we transcribed from the Phillimoors books, they do not specify Spinster/Bachelor in there books only when they were widowed etc. So Spinster/Bachelor was added. This is the only time we add anything other than what we see when we transcribe. So in answer... do we add data the answer is no.

Allow me to paraphrase freely:

"In certain circumstances we add data ... therefore the answer to the question do we add data? is no".

Essentially, they have fallen for one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book. They are confusing the proposition "the only status that Phillimore shows is widow / widower" with the proposition "every widow / widower is shown as such by Phillimore".

It is only if the latter propostion can be shown to be accurate that the addition of bachelor / spinster to those that are not specified as widow / widower can be justified. But (as this particular instance clearly demonstrates) the proposition cannot be shown to be accurate.

Union records, if they still exist, and if the union is willing to divulge them (bear in mind that trade union membership is classed as "sensitive personal data" for the purposes of the Data Protection Acts, so you're likely to meet a blanket response to enquiries of "we cannot reveal that information about anyone" ... even though it's only "personal data" of ANY description if it relates to an identifiable person still living) then it is not likely to tell you what link they worked or where they lodged on away turns ... it will be limited to their name, date of joining (and possibly leaving) and an address ... whcih may well have been updated on a "living document" basis so will only be last known address.

I wonder if the crossing out of "Roman" is in some way connected with the politics of the Home Rule crisis.

The protestant unionists opposed Home Rule ... they wanted remote government from Westminster to continue ... and their campaign slogan was "Home Rule means Rome Rule". So I wonder if this was a case of a Catholic priest wanting to emphasise that being Catholic didn't mean being disloyal ...

It helps to have drafted hunderds of the things in my time ...