Grandparents Marriage found and a new grandson!

[Janet]

New grandson arrived 21 June 08. Marriage Certificate arrived 23 June stating my grandparents married in a registry office by licence in Plymouth August 1923, 13 years after last child born! Two were born London 1901 and 1903. two born Plymouth 1904 and 1910. I have all birth certs of children stating mother's name to be that of her "husband" and her maiden name. On the 1901Census she is down as wife of........! On a sibling marriage cert of 1900 she is down as a witness giving her married name!! She has told porkies all down the line! When parents and aunts were alive I was never given any hint as to anything that might have hinted that they were all born illegitimate though legitimised by marriage eventually!

OK, now I have the cert it has posed more mysteries. Why did they eventually marry in 1923 for him to disappear back to Scotland in 1929 to die there in 1933, never returning to the family home?? Why did they ever bother to tie the knot?? Most intriguing is the address, which address I also have on a photograph of 1896 of a different member of the family! To all intents and purposes my lot first surfaced in Plymouth in 1904 yet this photo and address is Plymouth 1896, same as the marriage address! Will have to do some digging on this address. Sorry, if this is rather longwinded but I am pleased that I have found it but also rather "gobsmacked!"

Take note all those who cannot find certs, keep looking!!!

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Oooh well done!!

Might one of them have been previously married and they tied the knot when the previous spouse died?

Might they have given that address as a convenience for getting married, rather than because they actually lived there?

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Ooops, sorry!

Forgot to congratulate you on the new arrival! I'd forgotten that bit by the time I'd read to the end!!!

Welcome to your grandson Does he have a name?

[Janet]

Merry,

More work to do!!! Have thought of this so will need to look to see if there are any other reasons, but they are common names so will not be easy. He put down batchelor and she put down spinster, yet more porkies?? The only other explanation is that the eldest went to be a nun in 1928. Was she making waves in 1923 and would they have had to have produced marriage lines before she could enter? However, to produce a marriage cert from a marriage by licence in a registry office would not have gone down too well in an RC convent so I am not counting that one in at present.

Daniel is the new one's name, same as my Great Grandfather, only they did not know that when they named him!!

Janet

[Olde Crone Holden]

In a way, she wasn't actually telling any lies, more misleading people really.

She would have been commonly known as Mrs Bloggs anyway, so that WAS her name and she did nothing wrong or illegal there. The Registrar may not have asked her if she was married, just assumed she was, so it is a lie of omission more than commission!

Almost certainly waiting for a spouse to die I should think.

(Congrats on new grandson!)

OC

[Harrys mum]

Janet....could one of them been previously married?? Or could they have needed to be married to get a pension???

My grandparents got together sometime between 1925 and 1927 after my grandmother left her husband. Mum was born 1928. I finally found their marriage in another state in 1955 just before I was born.
Grandmother gave her maiden name and said she was a spinster. I have not yet found a divorce for her first marriage.
I know they would have needed a marriage certificate here to get the married old age pension.
Can't think of any other reason.

[Janet]

OC and Libby,

Thanks for your thoughts. I will have to do some digging. If one of them was married before it is going to be very difficult tracking this as both have common names and I had already got 5 wrong marriage certs. They could have married anywhere including Scotland! I have a few photo clues which might help me when the 1911 Census comes online. And of course I will need to check out the Plymouth address, yet another address to add to their many Plymouth addresses! I will also look at the pension aspect as one was 55 and the other one was 57 so that could be a possibility especially if she had an inkling he might push off!

Janet

[fran]

I have a relative who had her first child in 1895 when she was 20 years old.She appears on the 1901 census as a wife whose husband is away from home(he went to sea).I eventually found their marriage in 1927!I have looked for previous marriages,but have not found one.Her husband was 22 when the first child was born.Strangely, she always made her mark instead of signing,as though it wasn't a lie if you didn't actually write it down!
Fran

[Janet]

Fran

Thanks for that. I have to say that the thought of looking for another marriage for either would be very daunting, as I have no information as to a possible spouse for either of them. A look on Fee BMD for marriage between 1891, when he finished his apprenticeship, and 1900 when she was a witness to a marriage using his name, amounted to 320 for him and 78 for her with little idea where a marriage might have taken place, and that does not include the Scottish ones! This may be a mystery I will never solve! I will work on the info I have to see what else I can find before giving up.

Janet