Divorce or annulment

[Elwyn Soutter]

My understanding is that if the marriage was conducted in the normal way,  then it would be valid. Not getting permission from your CO might lead to disciplinary proceedings but wouldn’t invalidate the marriage itself.

[dmart7]

My understanding is that if the marriage was conducted in the normal way,  then it would be valid. Not getting permission from your CO might lead to disciplinary proceedings but wouldn’t invalidate the marriage itself.

Fair enough. So I'm still stuck looking for evidence of annulment.  Both ladies subsequently lived as though it never happened.  In 1911, they were listed as single in their own surnames, and when they married it was as spinsters.

[AntonyMMM]

Annulment records are listed with the divorce records  ...search for "nullity" as a keyword on Ancestry

[dmart7]

Annulment records are listed with the divorce records  ...search for "nullity" as a keyword on Ancestry

Thanks for that.  I went back searching for nullity.  My two didn't come up, so I am still left wondering if and how the two marriages were dissolved....

The circumstances here are that on both occasions the husband appears to have abandoned the marriage within two weeks of it taking place, and subsequently remarried without any reference to previous marriage.  Apart from this detail, I know a lot about him - he married at least seven times, and he moved continents (India, Europe then South Africa) seemingly to obfuscate his trail and responsibilities.

[Elwyn Soutter]

My understanding (from a chat with a Registrar) is that the term bachelor should not be used where someone was divorced. “Previous marriage dissolved” or, in earlier years, “divorced” should appear in the marital status box. She had never had an annulment but thought that if there was one, that term should appear, not “bachelor”. There are also marriages that are "void ab initio" eg where the couple were legally prohibited from marrying by age, consanguinity, or because at least one of them was not free to marry etc. Such a person probably could describe themselves as a bachelor because there never was a valid marriage.

You have indicated your ancestor described himself as a bachelor in not only his first marriage but at least 2 subsequent marriages.  There’s probably only one conclusion to be drawn from that.

Anthony MMM is often on this board and as I understand it is a former Registrar. Hopefully he'll see this and advise.

[Rena]

Personnel in H.M. Forces have to have permission to marry from their commanding officer.  Perhaps the marriage wasn't recognised where no permission was granted in writing.

Thanks Rena. I had wondered about this. Would it have been the case for an ordinary soldier in the Dragoons in the early 1900s?  If so, and if permission was not requested or given, how would the marriage be dissolved or declared null?  And again, if so, could a devious fellow have calculated this in advance to, ahem, have his way and then soon after get out of his marriage!?

My O.H. had to have permission to marry and had two weeks leave. I have a couple of WWI records and neither shows leave of just ONE week.   Somewhere I've got the 18th century army record of a dragoon in my family and the documents include details of his wife, child and the housing they occupied.

I think the ancestor knew exactly what he was doing and that was to bamboozle some females he fancied but didn't fancy marrying.

 

[dmart7]

There's little doubt that this man was a cad of the highest order.  Subsequent exploits were even worse, but he was able to get away with them because he moved continents. I am just a little mystified that he could have got away with these two early marriages without either leaving a record of annulment or of detection by authority.  Not least as he was in the army throughout these years, and not forgetting that the victims were two ladies who themselves went on to behave as though the marriages had never occurred.

[Rosinish]

For each marriage he wouldn't need proof of being a 'Bachelor', however, if he'd said he'd been married previously, he'd have needed proof of Divorce, Widowed or Annulment.

I'd doubt he told the Authorities about his string of marriages which you'll just have to accept as there would be no way of anyone finding out he'd committed bigamy if he never told anyone.

Fascinating story for sure.


Annie

[Elwyn Soutter]

For a long time most births, deaths and marriages were recorded by simply trusting the informant(s) to give honest information.  There were few, if any, documentary requirements nor checks either as to identity or previous marital status. That has changed a bit in recent years in the UK due to immigration related requirements, but in the early 1900s and before, what you told the official (Minister/Priest/Registrar) was normally taken on trust, unless someone challenged the event. Obviously if you were thousands of miles away from home, it was less likely anyone would challenge a marriage etc.