Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This is getting tricky... we need help

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

  • This is getting tricky... we need help

    Hoping that somebody who is clued up on family law can help us make sense of this puzzle. I've given all the known facts, sorry if it's a bit complicated. All parties are now deceased.

    Norah marries Richard in 1919. She has children with him up to 1930.

    She then marries Edward in 1932 without divorcing, thereby committing bigamy. Norah used her maiden name for this marriage. It took place in a Register Office at the opposite end of the country to her first marriage.

    In 1939, Edward goes on to marry Edith and highly likely has not divorced Norah. As his marriage to Norah was bigamous in the first place (he being the innocent party at that time), has he committed bigamy this time or not? The last child born to Edward and Norah was as recent as 1935.

    In 1956 Norah marries again to Richard, her first husband, whom she had not divorced in the first place when she married Edward in 1939. She marries Richard using his surname with no mention anywhere on the certificate of her own maiden surname or Edward's. Has she committed bigamy this time or not? as technically the couple were never unmarried.

    The 1956 ceremony was in a Register Office and a certificate issued so it was not simply a blessing or renewal of vows. Quite why she went to the bother of marrying again when she could have simply picked up where she left off is a mystery. I wouldn't have thought that vow renewals were in vogue way back then but I'm interested to know.
    Last edited by GallowayLass; 28-05-09, 17:31. Reason: addition

  • #2
    Could it be that the first husband was already married and it came out years later and they remarried when he was free?

    There was a divorce and you haven't found it.

    The Registrar didn't ask the question and just asked what her maiden name was.



    Researching Irish families: FARMER, McBRIDE McQUADE, McQUAID, KIRK, SANDS/SANAHAN (Cork), BARR,

    Comment


    • #3
      No to the first husband being married already.

      When Richard and Norah married for the first time, he was a 22 year old bachelor and she an 18 year old spinster (all correct). They had children who were presumably cared for by Richard. They did not live with their mother for reasons given below.

      Edward did not know about Norah's first marriage when they "married" in Woolich. Norah used her maiden name and declared herself a spinster (not true) and to be 26 years old (also not true, she was 31). The reason for the marriage location is that Edward was a soldier in the Royal Artillery, based there. Their first child was born 10 months after the marriage and died shortly afterwards. Edward left the army due to ill health and took his family back north to live. Norah did a runner leaving him with the two surviving children. Presumably she knew she was going to get rumbled. Nobody knows where she went.

      We now have more info on Edward's circumstances. He later fell in love with another lady and married her despite the objections of her parents who had found out about his previous unfortunate experience. Believing his first "marriage" to be invalid, he declared himself a bachelor. Edward's aunt was one witness, the bride's father was the other one.

      Norah appeared twice over the years to demand her children back but was refused. Again, her location is a mystery.

      We don't yet have Norah and Richard's 2nd marriage certificate to establish what status they both declared. They may have divorced properly after Norah left Edward but going by her track record that's unlikely. In any event, Richard must have forgiven her past behaviour. We will look into a possible divorce.

      So we're still looking for an opinion on Richard and Norah's 2nd marriage. If they did not actually divorce in the intervening years, is the 2nd marriage bigamy or not?

      Comment


      • #4
        Presumably you've got the actual marriage cert. for Norah and Edward?
        Dorothy G

        searching Gillett (Preston/Sheffield). Campbell and Hepburn in Glasgow

        There's no such thing as a Free Lunch

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes we have that one. Edward is a bachelor aged 23 and a gunner in the Royal Horse Artillery. Norah is falsley a spinster and 5 years younger than her true age. Her address was 16 Wellington Street, Woolwich.

          Comment


          • #6
            If they never divorced in the first place, then their second marriage was not bigamous, merely superfluous, from a legal point of view.

            It would not be considered bigamous in the criminal sense, but if the Registrar got to hear of the circumstances then the second marriage would probably be suppressed in the records because no actual MARRIAGE took place - they were already married to each other. Not illegal but totally unnecessary and the sort of thing to make the Registrar cross!

            However, don't be too sure there was no divorce...there might have been, making the marriage to Edward legal, but the remarriage to Richard bigamous, again, if she did not divorce Edward before remarrying Richard!

            OC

            Comment


            • #7
              Somebody in my previous thread gave me the place to look at TNA for divorces up to 1937. Edward and Norah married in 1932 and there's no entries for a matching Trowhill or Lockwood. So I think we are confident that there was no divorce and Norah married Edward bigamously.

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't know how long it will take my friend to find out if Norah ever divorced Richard at a later stage, sometime after running out on Edward and before they got together again.

                I wouldn't like to meet a cross Registrar LOL If they threw the book at you, it would be a pretty big and heavy one!

                Thanks for the answer to the "is it bigamy" question OC, that clears that up for us.

                Comment

                Working...
                X