Was this man a bigamist?

[bel_jon68]

I found the following household on 1881 census and am trying to work out why the children's surnames alternated between Jones and Shuker.  (I thought it may have been a transcription error until I checked the document image.)

Thomas JONES   Head   M   Male   43   
Mary JONES   Wife   M   Female   35   
Annie JONES   Dau   U   Female   15   
William SHUKER   Son      Male   11   
Edwin JONES   Son      Male   10   
Mary A. SHUKER   Dau      Female   8   
William JONES   Son      Male   6   
Fanny SHUKER   Dau      Female   4   
Richard EVANS   Servt      Male   17   

I can only assume that the SHUKER children belong to Mary and she was married previously.  If this is the case, it's a bit spooky how the children's ages mean they alternate surnames in this way!

It's William Jones I'm interested in and if this is his family, the link with the Shuker surname is replicated elsewhere in a completely different line... it might provide the link between the two that I'm looking for (or maybe I'm just clutching at straws again!).

Anyone else got any ideas? 

Bel

[Hackstaple]

This is not uncommon. It was her second marriage and the Shukers were hers. The neat alternation is unusual but statistically as probable as any other sequence. In most of these cases one finds the children of the father's first marriage are the eldest - when his wife died he needed both companionship and a mother for his own kids.

[Cell]

Have you seen this on the free BMD?

It looks like your couple are just  a year into their marriage , if this is them below. So they are probably both on their second marriage, and both brought their own children along.

Marriages Jun 1880

Hall  John    Wem  6a 1283   
JONES  Thomas     Wem  6a 1283   
Reeyes  Elizabeth     Wem  6a 1283   
Shuker  Mary     Wem  6a 1283   

 

[Geoff of Devon]

Well done Cell, that explains perfectly the co-incidental "neat alteration". Funny that one though!

Bigamy wasn't as common as we might think. Just cause Vic Reeves (Jim) had a bigamist in the family everyone will want one now!

[bel_jon68]

ErrorSPAM REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.][/color] ErrorSPAM REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.][/color] ErrorSPAM REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.][/color]Thanks Geoff - your explanation makes perfect sense...and I wasn't hoping for a bigamist, honestly!

And thanks for finding that marriage, Cell - it's seems a good possibility, given the area in which they lived - looks like there's loads to find out about this couple if they were both previously married!

Thanks again

Bel

[Hackstaple]

I followed a system I have developed and first found the Shuker deaths at Wem somewhere around the birth of the youngest Shuker, Fanny in 1877 or so. I found only one possible, Peter Shuker d. Wem Sep 1877 6a 434.
I then looked for a marriage of that Peter, not necessarily at Wem as marriages tended to take place in the bride's parish. I found a marriage to Mary Sutton Whitchurch Sep 1867 6a 1219.
So, if my system works the Mary Jones, formerly Shuker was born Sutton. It also means Mary was not a  bigamist. As a matter of interest why did you post under this title - what evidence is there for Tom Jones to be a bigamist?
Over to you

Not everyone can just claim a bigamist

[Geoff of Devon]

But Tom Jones (the novel) wasn't a bigamist Hack, he was a philanderer!!! 

[Hackstaple]

Duh? I only know the one who sang "Jezebel" - we didn't do that book in Metalwork.

[bel_jon68]

Hackstaple - reasons for posting under this heading:
(a)  it makes people read the post!
(b)  when I first saw the household, it made me smile - the 'bigamist' thing was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but at first glance you have to admit it does look like he had another woman on the side, proliferating his genes...

THANK YOU so much for the info you've provided - that really does give me something to work with - GREAT STUFF!!

Thanks

Bel