Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

is the register of a bigamous marriage deleted from the register ??

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

  • is the register of a bigamous marriage deleted from the register ??

    Hi does anyone happen to know if a bigamous marriage is struck off the record register please ??
    I have a marriage in Dec Qtr 1919 and the groom is supposed to have served a gaol sentence for bigamy...I would have thought there would be no record for this marriage if it was bigamous....allan
    Allan ......... researching oakes/anyon/standish/collins/hartley/barker/collins-cheshire
    oakes/tipping/ellis/jones/schacht/...garston, liverpool
    adams-shropshire/roberts-welshpool
    merrick/lewis/stringham/nicolls-herefordshire
    coxon/williamson/kay/weaver-glossop/stockport/walker-gorton

  • #2
    Allan

    No entry, once made, is ever deleted from the registers.

    When a marriage is bigamous (and proved so by the court) then the entry is suppressed by the GRO, who will not send out a certificate.

    However, sometimes these bigamous marriages still appear in old copies of the INDEX, which leads to confusion, because if you order that marriage, the GRO will say they cannot supply a certificate, but they will not say why.

    I hope this helps.

    OC

    Comment


    • #3
      And sometimes even if the annulment has been done properly (ie through a court) the GRO or the local office may not have been informed in the proper manner and the cert will still be issued.

      My grandmother married bigamously (ie the groom was already married) as far as we know this marriage was not annulled and I was able to buy the cert, however, the groom's brother also married bigamously (a genetic trait??! lol) and was jailed for this, but a copy of his marriage certificate was also still available!

      Comment


      • #4
        That's interesting OC, maybe I should apply for the certificate of the bigamous marriage of my Aunts husband,I have the ref, it might answer some questions for me.
        He went on to live with the second woman as my Aunt refused to have any more to do with him.
        The marriage had to be bigamous as he & my Aunt were married in a Catholic church in 1917 & he married the second woman in 1923. No way would my Aunt have agreed to a divorce & I have a copy of a letter he sent to her saying how sorry he was & that he knew he had to be punished but the letter isn't dated & I have no idea when the court case would be. I spent Sat afternoon at Colindale looking for a court record but no luck.:(
        Vivienne passed away July 2013

        Comment


        • #5
          Oooops I'm an idiot, just checked my file & I have already got the certificate of the bigamous marriage.:o
          Vivienne passed away July 2013

          Comment


          • #6
            thank you all...as always I have a definite answer...cheers...allan;)
            Allan ......... researching oakes/anyon/standish/collins/hartley/barker/collins-cheshire
            oakes/tipping/ellis/jones/schacht/...garston, liverpool
            adams-shropshire/roberts-welshpool
            merrick/lewis/stringham/nicolls-herefordshire
            coxon/williamson/kay/weaver-glossop/stockport/walker-gorton

            Comment


            • #7
              I was wondering the same as I am helping a distant cousin with his tree. The man in question married a woman in 1908 but I have found his wife well and alive in the 1911 census living with their daughter an son but in a different part of the country.Does anyone know if the rule then applied if they had not heard from the person for 7 years they could assume they had died thank you

              Margaret

              Comment


              • #8
                Margaret

                You cannot just assume someone had died, you have to go through legal channels to have them declared dead, after seven years absence and strenuous efforts to find them.

                The church in earlier times DID take it upon themselves to allow women to remarry after a seven year absence, or if the man had been transported, more or less immediately! This was because the enforced separation meant that the absent person could not fulfil their marriage contract, so the marriage was void in the eyes of the church.

                Have you looked for a divorce? Not common but by no means impossible at that time.

                OC

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hello OC where would I look for a divorce. The last time they were together was in 1881 when they had a son she was not with him on the 1891 census in fact I can't find her in the 1891 census but have found her in both the 1901 and 1911 census.

                  Margaret

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                    Margaret

                    You cannot just assume someone had died, you have to go through legal channels to have them declared dead, after seven years absence and strenuous efforts to find them.

                    The church in earlier times DID take it upon themselves to allow women to remarry after a seven year absence, or if the man had been transported, more or less immediately! This was because the enforced separation meant that the absent person could not fulfil their marriage contract, so the marriage was void in the eyes of the church.

                    Have you looked for a divorce? Not common but by no means impossible at that time.

                    OC
                    Depends what you mean by earlier times OC.
                    An Act of Parliament of 1604 stated the following
                    "II. Provided always, That this Act, nor any Thing therein contained, shall extend to any Person or Persons whose Husband or Wife shall be continually remaining beyond the Seas by the Space of seven Years together, or whose Husband or Wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the Space of seven Years together, in any Parts within his Majesty’s Dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that Time. "

                    1926legitAct
                    Cheers
                    Guy
                    PS Don't take any notice of the name in the link it is because I used a template named that to insert the Act on my website without changing the name. Very lazy.
                    Last edited by Guy; 23-02-09, 17:00.
                    Guy passed away October 2022

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Guy

                      Well, I think 1604 can confidently be classed as "earlier times" lol!

                      I meant pre-1837, but of course the church continued to allow remarriage under those terms for quite a bit after 1837. I have seen one example of a woman remarrying in church in the 1840s, and under her name are the words

                      "previous husband sent beyond the seas for life. Married with the permission of the Bishop".

                      I also remember someone else having a certificate with similar wording.

                      OC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by maggiemay View Post
                        Hello OC where would I look for a divorce. The last time they were together was in 1881 when they had a son she was not with him on the 1891 census in fact I can't find her in the 1891 census but have found her in both the 1901 and 1911 census.

                        Margaret
                        Kew record series J78 and TS29.
                        Cheers
                        Guy
                        Guy passed away October 2022

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          My mother married a bigamist and he was found out and convicted at the Old Bailey in London, however I was able to apply to the GRO and receive the marriage certificate from 1929. I still have the copy.

                          G G

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X