Author Topic: A possible case of bigamy?  (Read 950 times)

Online heywood

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 40,661
    • View Profile
Re: A possible case of bigamy?
« Reply #9 on: Saturday 10 July 21 16:21 BST (UK) »
Amongst all the ‘what ifs’ …
Sarah may have left John.
She may have committed bigamy.
He may have been heartbroken and reverted to the life of a bachelor.

Were there any children for John and Sarah?
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Davedrave

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,722
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A possible case of bigamy?
« Reply #10 on: Saturday 10 July 21 20:22 BST (UK) »
Amongst all the ‘what ifs’ …
Sarah may have left John.
She may have committed bigamy.
He may have been heartbroken and reverted to the life of a bachelor.

Were there any children for John and Sarah?

Entirely possible. As for children, they may have had ten or twelve, but presumably didn’t have them baptised. And it’s likely that they were all victims of Black Annis, who lived just up the road ;D
ESSEX: Cramphorn Raven Sams Sayers Taylor; GLOS: Beacham/Beauchamp; HERTS: Chamberlain Chuck; LEICS: Allot Bentley Godfrey Greasley Hunt Hurst Jarvis Lane Lea Light Woodward; LINCS: Lambert Mitchell Muse ; STAFFS: Hodgkins Jarvis; SURREY: Light; WARKS: Astley/Chesshire Bradbury Hicken/Hickin Hudson; WORCS: Ballinger Beauchamp Laight

Offline majm

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,385
  • NSW 1806 Bowman Flag Ecce signum.
    • View Profile
Re: A possible case of bigamy?
« Reply #11 on: Saturday 10 July 21 21:44 BST (UK) »
:)  some thoughts .... assuming your theory is on track  ....  8) ...

 ;D  Could Sarah have been transported beyond the seas? If so marriage was ended when she embarked ....
 ;D Could Sarah have quit the marriage and was not known to be alive .... Seven year rule ...
 :D have you looked for any children for John and Sarah ... if none,  she may have quit and gone beyond the seas of her own accord or stayed local but joined a convent or retired to a nunnery

Outside the square thinking  :)


JM

 :) Re Transported under a sentence I have not yet found her in New South Wales 1814-1824, but still looking.

 :) Re not known to be alive - please  use RChats search option for the year  of 1604 as the keyword... plenty of threads will give you the relevant wording to confirm the relevant statute law

 :) If you cannot find  any children, then possibly there were none born alive.   Sarah may have died in child birth.

Bachelor on next marriage .... The information on parish registers can be 'fluiid" in the degree of accuracy.  The clergy's first duty was not to foresee that 200 years later there would be questions to answer that were posed by people who are interested in family history.  Clergy may have recorded 'bachelor' without even asking John HUNT.   Clergy  were supportive of marriage over criminal conversation.  ::)

When looking for Sarah's possible death .... as a burial in a churchyard ... HUNT can be mis-transcribed ... M or W or F or TH   for capital letter.  . And the second letter could be any vowel and as for the final letters ... u or r  or S or e or m or l    and so HUNT could be indexed as Wail  or as indecipherable ... or worse  perhaps the burial register is not extant ...

 So when looking for burial perhaps  best to search for her first name Sarah rather than her surname.  Also try Sally and Sara.

A bachelor was simply an adult male who had no wife and children with him in his domestic circumstances.

JM  one finger typiste so edited to sort spelling and grammar.   
The information in my posts is provided for academic and non-commercial research purposes. 
Random Acts of Kindness Given Freely are never Worthless for they are Priceless.
Qui scit et non docet.    Qui docet et non vivit.    Qui nescit et non interrogat.   
All Census Look Ups Are Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
I do not have a face book or a twitter account.

Offline majm

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,385
  • NSW 1806 Bowman Flag Ecce signum.
    • View Profile
Re: A possible case of bigamy?
« Reply #12 on: Sunday 11 July 21 01:31 BST (UK) »
FreeREG has a 24 Mar 1822 Burial for a Sarah Hunt age 32, abode Loughborough

It’s possible, but I see that there are a few Sarah Hunts baptised around the right time in villages closer to Loughborough. OTOH there was a Sarah Tacy baptised there around the right time, as well as one of similar age baptised in John’s own parish of St Nicholas in Leicester. Two individuals named Sarah Tacy were married in St Nicholas in 1814, so maybe related, and possibly John’s bride was from the Loughborough area, and returned there for some reason. I still can’t see why he would be described as “bachelor”, unless just a clerical error.

Dave  :)

1814

Sarah TACY married John HUNT on 17 January 1814, St Nicholas, Leicester.
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NJ8W-R2Y

Sarah TACY married Samuel RUSSEL/L on 31 October 1814, St Nicholas, Leicester.  https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QP4W-56HW

were there two lasses named Sarah TACY? 

JM
The information in my posts is provided for academic and non-commercial research purposes. 
Random Acts of Kindness Given Freely are never Worthless for they are Priceless.
Qui scit et non docet.    Qui docet et non vivit.    Qui nescit et non interrogat.   
All Census Look Ups Are Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
I do not have a face book or a twitter account.


Offline Bee

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,914
    • View Profile
Re: A possible case of bigamy?
« Reply #13 on: Sunday 11 July 21 01:50 BST (UK) »
FreeREG has a 24 Mar 1822 Burial for a Sarah Hunt age 32, abode Loughborough

This burial is also on FindMyPast, the burial register clearly states the name and age, nice to see some neat writing  for a change.
Dinsdale, Ellis, Gee, Goldsmith,Green,Hawks,Holmes,  Lacey, Longhorn, Pickersgill, Quantrill,Tuthill, Tuttle & Walker,  in E & W Yorks, Lincs, Norfolk & Suffolk. Census information is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Davedrave

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,722
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A possible case of bigamy?
« Reply #14 on: Sunday 11 July 21 08:36 BST (UK) »
FreeREG has a 24 Mar 1822 Burial for a Sarah Hunt age 32, abode Loughborough

It’s possible, but I see that there are a few Sarah Hunts baptised around the right time in villages closer to Loughborough. OTOH there was a Sarah Tacy baptised there around the right time, as well as one of similar age baptised in John’s own parish of St Nicholas in Leicester. Two individuals named Sarah Tacy were married in St Nicholas in 1814, so maybe related, and possibly John’s bride was from the Loughborough area, and returned there for some reason. I still can’t see why he would be described as “bachelor”, unless just a clerical error.

Dave  :)

1814

Sarah TACY married John HUNT on 17 January 1814, St Nicholas, Leicester.
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NJ8W-R2Y

Sarah TACY married Samuel RUSSEL/L on 31 October 1814, St Nicholas, Leicester.  https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QP4W-56HW

were there two lasses named Sarah TACY? 

JM

Yes, two Sarah Tacys, it seems, and baptised (different parents), 1786 and 1789 (off the top of my head), one baptised in St Nicholas, Leicester, and one in Loughborough. It seems highly likely that they were related in some way. John Hunt might have married either of them, and if he’d married the Loughborough Sarah it seems quite possible that she might have returned to her home town if her marriage didn’t work out, or maybe nothing of the sort. I suppose it’s possible that she could have died suddenly there on a visit to family, or gone home in decline due to illness, and died there, and been buried there.

Thanks for your pointers to avenues to explore.
As you say, parish records can be pretty unreliable, and I suppose that the “bachelor” status could be no more than mistake. I have a case of a marriage entry in the PR which gives entirely the wrong name for the bride, and if it weren’t for the existence of the licence, supported by baptism records of their children, and the wife’s burial, what mayhem that would cause!

BTW, is there any other way to type than with one finger? ;D

Dave :)

ESSEX: Cramphorn Raven Sams Sayers Taylor; GLOS: Beacham/Beauchamp; HERTS: Chamberlain Chuck; LEICS: Allot Bentley Godfrey Greasley Hunt Hurst Jarvis Lane Lea Light Woodward; LINCS: Lambert Mitchell Muse ; STAFFS: Hodgkins Jarvis; SURREY: Light; WARKS: Astley/Chesshire Bradbury Hicken/Hickin Hudson; WORCS: Ballinger Beauchamp Laight

Offline majm

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,385
  • NSW 1806 Bowman Flag Ecce signum.
    • View Profile
Re: A possible case of bigamy?
« Reply #15 on: Sunday 11 July 21 09:14 BST (UK) »
Yes, when trained as Steno-typiste all eight fingers flew over qwerty on Imperial typewriter with short-hand notebook on left hand side.    We did not look at keys, nor at the typed page coming together.  In fact, one finger typing into dialogue box causes huge technical greycell issues .... for example : little fingers have decades of training on minding the peas and queues and one finger rule has cast all that exercise aside ... 

Sorry for side track  ;D  ::)

JM
The information in my posts is provided for academic and non-commercial research purposes. 
Random Acts of Kindness Given Freely are never Worthless for they are Priceless.
Qui scit et non docet.    Qui docet et non vivit.    Qui nescit et non interrogat.   
All Census Look Ups Are Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
I do not have a face book or a twitter account.

Offline Davedrave

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,722
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A possible case of bigamy?
« Reply #16 on: Sunday 11 July 21 09:54 BST (UK) »
Yes, when trained as Steno-typiste all eight fingers flew over qwerty on Imperial typewriter with short-hand notebook on left hand side.    We did not look at keys, nor at the typed page coming together.  In fact, one finger typing into dialogue box causes huge technical greycell issues .... for example : little fingers have decades of training on minding the peas and queues and one finger rule has cast all that exercise aside ... 

Sorry for side track  ;D  ::)

JM

I did once teach myself to use several fingers (with help from my father, who typed from Morse code in the RAF during the war). But it didn’t last long, and I reverted to my right forefinger, always the butt of mickey taking at work. In my defence I’ll add that I have typed thousands of words this way. I’d like to be able to type, but even more, to play the the piano, but I must have a hand-eye coordination problem. So I settled on one-finger typing and slipping a CD into my player  ;D

ESSEX: Cramphorn Raven Sams Sayers Taylor; GLOS: Beacham/Beauchamp; HERTS: Chamberlain Chuck; LEICS: Allot Bentley Godfrey Greasley Hunt Hurst Jarvis Lane Lea Light Woodward; LINCS: Lambert Mitchell Muse ; STAFFS: Hodgkins Jarvis; SURREY: Light; WARKS: Astley/Chesshire Bradbury Hicken/Hickin Hudson; WORCS: Ballinger Beauchamp Laight