Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are the odds?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What are the odds?

    I have in front of me 2 marriage certificates, one dated 1916 and one dated 1921. On both marriage certificates the grooms name and the brides name are the same. First marriage in York 29th May 1916 register office. Second in Chorlton Manchester dated 16th March 1921. On both the grooms name is George Sargeant bachelor, age given in 1916 as 38. Brides name Frances Parkinson Mayer spinster, age given in 1916 26. Grooms father's name George Sargeant antique dealer. Brides father's name George Cruickshank Mayer Musician. 1921 marriage, ages are now George Sargeant is now 43, widower, father's name the same but is now a house dealer, Frances Parkinson Mayer is 34 and a widow, father is George Cruickshank and a musician. I think the first of these marriages is bigamist marriage. My grt. Aunt Frances Parkinson Cruickshank was born March 1887. She married in 1908 Samuel Elijah Mayer, he was in the tunnelling corps in WW1 and had a citation of the Distinguished Conduct Medal. He was killed in action April 17th 1916. I have checked to try and find out how long news of his death would have taken to reach home and several factors of identification could have taken a while. I have found a Frances Mayer b. 1890 which fits the age on the first marriage certificate, however, no same middle name, also found her married to another person in Staffordshire. The only common ground I can find is the area in which both lived, George Cruickshank had moved his family down from Sunderland and in 1901 is on the census for Warrington Lancs. Frances is 14 on this census. I have found George Sargeant in 1901 in Ince in Makerfield which is within the area, I found a marriage for him in 1900 in Wigan and Leigh Register office. The question is have I found a bigamist marriage (assuming the bride didn't know her husband was already dead - well she wouldn't have put spinster if she had known?) Who is this George Sargeant? Did they run away together? Can anyone shed any light on this or have I got it completely wrong?
    Vonny.

  • #2
    What occupation is given for the groom at both marriages?

    Jay
    Janet in Yorkshire



    Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

    Comment


    • #3
      The first marriage wasn't bigamous if her husband was dead, makes no difference whether she knew that or not!

      The usual explanation for these married-twice is that the groom was in the forces and did not have permission to marry. It was simpler to marry a second time.

      OC

      Comment


      • #4
        On the first marriage the grooms occupation is listed as an ordinance clerk, on the on the first a steel merchants clerk. Any facts that are listed on the first marriage could be bogus but I am convinced that these 2 certificates are for the same people, I have been able to find anyone called George Cruickshank Mayer for the brides father. The Mayer has been added so she wouldn't have to disclose her maiden name?
        Vonny.

        Comment


        • #5
          Is it ordinance or ordnance? If the latter, it will have been military so OC's suggestion about not having permission would be likely, I'd have thought.
          Caroline
          Caroline's Family History Pages
          Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

          Comment


          • #6
            I have looked again at the certificate and it is spelt ordnance, couldn't read it properly the first time - the writing is a bit difficult. I am assuming that he was already married - if he had not been, how within the five years since the first marriage is he now a widower on the second marriage?
            Vonny

            Comment


            • #7
              Another possibility is that pensions for dependents of those killed in WW1 weren't introduced and worked out until after Nov 1918. It could have been that she was hoping to claim a pension as an army widow and to do so, had made the application in her pre-marriage name. By 1921, she had perhaps been informed of no entitlement (if there were no children) so, having as it were "opted out" of the marriage, perhaps they decided to do it again and ensure that things were in order.

              Whilst I agree with OC about the usual requirement of army personnel needing permission to marry (for the marriage to be recognised by the army for pension purposes) I'm not sure that this applied to all serving "for the duration of the war" in WW1.
              George appears not to have been a regular (change of occupation by 1921) but another possibility is that he was entitled to some financial award as a result of the war & Frances was not on his paperwork, so they decided to have another marriage to bring things into line.

              Jay
              Last edited by Janet in Yorkshire; 19-03-15, 09:07.
              Janet in Yorkshire



              Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

              Comment


              • #8
                It could be one or both of them was committing bigamy or at least thought they were. Even if they found out later that her husband had died it is possible they thought their first marriage was invalid because some details were incorrect and so decided to remarry.
                Judith passed away in October 2018

                Comment


                • #9
                  Another thought - have you looked for an army record for George? If you find one, it could have details of addresses, next of kin, dependents etc.

                  Jay
                  Janet in Yorkshire



                  Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I had thought about the pension implications and is a valid point. I am unable to pinpoint this man by birth or census. If I could find him then I would know of his status when he married in 1916. All very frustrating! Frances did have a daughter from her original marriage in 1908, Hilda b.1910 Kent. On the 1911 census Frances, husband Samuel Elijah Mayer and daughter are living with her parents in Moston in Manchester.
                    Vonny.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I agree, as he was only service personnel during the war, he would not have risked any punishment for marrying without permission.

                      I think Judith's suggestion is probably the answer - this couple thought they were not properly married because many of the details on their 1916 marriage were incorrect. Although that would not invalidate a marriage, lots of people thought it would and it worried them to the point of remarrying!

                      I wonder too, if Frances was collecting a widow's pension and "forgot" to tell the army.

                      Another remote possibility is that she presented herself in 1916 as a singlewoman to George and he didn't know about her marriage (or her daughter) until later.

                      OC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        That, oc is another slant on things. However it doesn't answer the question of George being married at the time, who, I wonder was his wife as he does present himself on the second legal marriage as a widower? From being a bachelor in 1916 to being a widower just 5 years later in 1921, how did that happen when he was already "married" to Frances, it does make you wonder? Also, poor Samuel Elijah Mayer sacrificed himself for king and country and his wife is playing around behind his back? There is only one month between his death and them getting married, identification of his body could have taken weeks before the family was told.
                        Vonny.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Samuel Mayer was one of thousands commemorated on the Arras Memorial with no known grave. Given that he was in a tunnelling company he may have died as a result of German counter mining activity and unfortunately men killed in those circumstances would often have been deep underground when a mine was detonated beneath them or alongside their workings. Their bodies were rarely retrieved and there would have been no body to identify. The family would have received a telegram shortly after an incident informing them that he was missing in action and later his death would have been confirmed, usually by presumption. The Distinguished Conduct Medal he was awarded is a medal of considerable significance and would have been awarded for a particular meritorious act. Not a medal awarded very frequently.

                          merleyone

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi Merleyone, thank you for that contribution. The DCM was awarded to Lance - Corporal S. Mayer 173 tunnelling company on the 6th September 1915 at Cambrin, 8 months before he died the following April, and yes he is commemorated on the Arras Memorial. I did look into the question of how long it would take for news to reach relatives, only Officers families received news by telegram, the other ranks were informed by a standard army form, the information I found here http://www.1914-1918.net/died.htm Sometimes it could take weeks if not months before the families were informed, they may have received a missing in action before confirmation of death. The army specifically recruited miners for the tunnelling corps and Samuel Mayer was in fact working as a sinker in a coal pit on the 1911 census.
                            Vonny

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I can see a possible marriage - this is pure speculation of course - to Elizabeth Dunn in 1900 at Leigh RO. Twin boys born in 1903, Elizabeth dies in 1911. You could look to see what they are doing in 1901 and 1911 to rule them in or out.

                              Also George married to Mary Ann Partington in 1903 Hindley Green. I can't find anything forward for either of them. It is going to be a guessing game I'm afraid, looking for Georges with a father called George.

                              OC

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Yes, I did find that marriage to Elizabeth Dunn in 1900 OC, didn't find the twins though and I didn't find her death, so thank you for that. I did see the Mary Ann Partington one but dismissed that for some reason. There are so many George Sargeants! I think I have been assuming that the George I am looking for was from the Lancashire area but looking through BMD at dates around the d.o.b. there isn't any. I have looked between 1875 - 1879 and the concentration of George Sargent's seems to be mainly in the midlands, it seems to be a case of "take you pick"! The 1901 I first found for George and Elizabeth Dunn, he is 23 she is 22 so the age fits the first marriage certificate for George and Frances. George is from Westmorland -Witherslack, Elizabeth is from Hindley in Lancs. The occupation for this George is Blast furnace engine winder, so the occupation is totally different to the 1916 marriage. On the 1911 they have moved to Aspull Lancs, they now have 4 boys, the twins and 2 younger ones, the youngest a year old. George is now a stoker on stationary boilers. No real change of occupation.
                                Vonny.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Just to update last post, 16, the George on the census, have gone back again, his father was called Richard, so this puts him definitely out of the running.
                                  Vonny.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Yes, I agree, sorry. Also Elizabeth's age at death is wrong (41 in 1911). So definitely not them.

                                    OC

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      I see there was a child born June Q 1917 to this "marriage" and I wonder if this is what sparked the marriage in 1916, although depending when the 1917 child was actually born, that child could have been born inside "marriage". This marriage cert would have entitled Frances to pay from the Army for herself and the child...maybe she was getting two lots? Or maybe Frances and Samuel Mayer had parted company long before this. Have you checked for a divorce?

                                      OC

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Oh, that's interesting OC. I did look for a birth but couldn't find one. Where was it registered? No I haven't looked for a divorce. Frances and Samuel's child Hilda was born 1910 Kent, now it was there that the recruited miners had to go for training for the army - I've read that recently but can't remember where. In 1911 they are living with her parents in Moston Manchester, so if they divorced it would be after that.
                                        Vonny

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X