Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Non-conformists bigamist? Your thoughts, please

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

  • Non-conformists bigamist? Your thoughts, please

    Edit, sorry, wrong forum, should be on research.

    I've been pursuing James and Ruth Hines/Hine/Haynes/Hayne/Hines for quite a few months now; (some may remember the tinseller occupation query).
    Well, it turns out that there is a removal order for Ruth Hines (wife of James)from Bishop's Hull to Exeter in 1818 and in 1829 a sort of hearing in Lambeth (!) concerning Ruth Hines (from Bishop's Hull) and James Hines (then married to someone else) in which Ruth Hines (also then married to someone else) is declared to be guilty of fornication (having produced two 'illegtimate children from the second 'marriage').

    The first union produced three known children, Jane, William and Sarah (mentioned in the Exeter records). These births appear in the non-conformist records for Bishop's Hull. The Lambeth records just mention William and Jane.

    I'm thinking the first marriage was also non-conformist (haven't found any trace in Bishop's Hull or IGI) or never happened at all, although in Sarah's baptism record her parents are given as James and Ruth Hyne. Could the parties concerned have considered a non conformist marrriage as not counting and gone ahead with another marriage (although I think even non conformist marriages at that time (around 1815 I would say, would have to be recorded)?

    Hope I've made myself clear but where to go next?
    Last edited by taffyfrog; 12-01-08, 21:43. Reason: Wrong forum
    CAROLE : "A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK"

  • #2
    The Church Authorities would not bring a case of fornication if the FIRST marriage was not a valid one.

    Is it clear that the charge of fornication refers to the second marriages and not the first?

    The only valid non conformist marriages at that time were Quaker or Jewish marriages. All other marriages had to be performed by C of E clergy otherwise they were not valid marriages.

    Hmmmm...Hines is a Jewish surname)

    OC

    Comment


    • #3
      OC - sorry forgot to mention they are court records and not church records. Does that make a difference?
      CAROLE : "A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK"

      Comment


      • #4
        I imagine they are Church court records, as you mention Lambeth? These kind of misdemeanours were dealt with by church courts, not civil or law courts (as far as I am aware!)

        OC

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks OC, will bear that in mind;
          Still need to find the marriage of Ruth and James though - nothing on IGI and nothing in Bishop's Hull. Nothing in Exeter St Thomas (parish where Ruth was removed to) and nothing in Lambeth. But these people seem to have had the taste for travel, so maybe will remain unanswered
          CAROLE : "A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK"

          Comment


          • #6
            Sorry, just read your post PROPERLY, lol!

            The "illegitimate" children are from the SECOND marriage - this must be bigamous therefore.

            Doesn't it say when the first marriage took place??? How could they prove "fornication" without evidence of the first marriage, and what punishment was given to them both?

            OC

            Comment


            • #7
              Don't have this info for the moment. I found the references for both the removal and the court case on A2A and a cousin in Canada (who seems to be able to get to London and Exeter more easily than I can - think if I said the records were in Timbuktoo he'd just happen to be there at the time - wonderful man), went and took photos as neither archives could send me copies of the documents due to their condition.

              Just can't wait to break this wall down, might take time but am patient.
              CAROLE : "A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK"

              Comment

              Working...
              X