RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: jonwicken on Sunday 15 November 15 00:57 GMT (UK)
-
Hello all,
I have a question on the amount of time widows and widowers would leave between their former spouse dying and marrying a new husband or wife. Does anyone know if anything has been written on this anywhere?
I do have an ancestor of mine (Isaac Lepine) whose wife was buried on 15th November 1685 and he remarried a mere three weeks later on 6 December 1685. He had a young son born the previous year, so I assume this is why he remarried so quickly. but was this usual?
The reason that has led to this query is that my ancestors Thomas Hopkins and his son Thomas Hopkins both appear to have married in 1744 in Curry Rivel, Somerset, to two women whose names were both Ann.
I am trying to unravel which Ann is which and while I think I have worked it out this remarriage query might help me.
Thomas Hopkins married Jane Maine at North Curry in 1716 and they had a son Thomas Hopkins in Curry Rivel in 1720. Jane was buried there on 14 April 1744. Then it gets confusing.
A Thomas Hopkins married Ann Towells on 29 Apr 1744 at Curry Rivel then on 3 Jul 1744 a Thomas Hopkins married Ann Slade. Only the names and no marital status is given so I am left in a quandary as which Thomas married which Ann.
I believe that Ann Slade was most probably the widow of Robert Slade who died in 1737 and so it would seem that the elder Thomas married her. But I can't be completely certain of course and this is why I have a question on remarrying.
if Thomas Hopkins senior's wife was buried on 14 April 1744, would it have been socially acceptable for him to have remarried two weeks later?
He had first married 28 years previously in 1716 and as far as I can tell only had an adult son (Thomas junior) at the time of his wife's death, so there were no young children to care for.
If anyone could please shed any light on remarriage in this time period I would therefore be most grateful.
Many thanks,
Jon
-
Widows in the 1700's wanted to remarry quickly without a male provider they would live in severe poverty. It was hard for an ordinary man to work and care for young children (no child support back then), so a quick remarriage was probably practical for some men too.
-
They tended not to marry THAT fast in my experience, although I've had a few that were quick off the mark. It does strike me that if the marriage was by banns, it had to be read out on three consecutive Sundays prior to the marriage taking place. I have no idea how long it might take to get a marriage licence.
If you consider how many marriages end in divorce nowadays and that divorce wasn't really a thing back then, it might well be that the relationship ended a long time before her death but the marriage continued until he was legally free to remarry, so while we look back and might see some kind of betrayal in a quick remarriage after spousal death, things might not have been like that.
-
Thanks for the replies. I have to say I had not even thought about Banns as I assumed they only came in with the Marriage Act of 1753.
However looking at this on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753 it seems Banns were in use before this time, although not essential.
I think I had better see where marriage licenses for Somerset reside.
Does anyone else have marriages that occurred within two or three weeks of their husband or wife's death from any period?
Thanks,
Jon
-
Ah, well in that case I've learnt something new as well then! All of my lines die out in the 1700s, often going back to marriage records that barely say anything (I have one with the date and merely "William Brady to Isabel", no surname for the poor bride!) I never thought about when the earliest date for a banns was.
-
...
I think I had better see where marriage licenses for Somerset reside.
...
If you have noticed by licence against a Somerset marriage it might be available at Somerset Heritage Centre
http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/Catalogs.htm
They provided me with the licence for my Thomas Baker and Jane Warren when they married in 1827.
When you search the Online catalogue and are just using a person's name, eg Thomas Baker, click "phrase" and then hit search.
I thought that traditionally mourning was 1 year, to avoid the censure of the community. Probably the local vicar would be unhappy about marrying a widowed person before that period unless they were sympathetic to their plight. I would think they would be more likely to go to a neighbouring parish than buy a licence.
A licence in 1700's was a status symbol, useful when marrying outside of your own parish, but involved a fee and possibly a journey to the nearest bishop or his surrogate.
In my tree I don't have a lot of 2nd marriages mostly because so many lived into their 70's and 80's, even in the 1700's.
Salute,
Janelle
-
Thanks for the replies. I have to say I had not even thought about Banns as I assumed they only came in with the Marriage Act of 1753.
The publication in the church of the names of persons intending marriage seems to have originated in France about the end of the twelfth century. In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council made it a general ecclesiastical law. In England the First Council of Westminster provided that the law of publishing in the church the banns of marriage must be observed.
Stan
-
Does anyone else have marriages that occurred within two or three weeks of their husband or wife's death from any period?
Thanks,
Jon
Not *quite* that quick --and a bit later than yours
I have Joseph Watson marrying Ann Whiting on 1st Jan 1822, a mere 10 weeks after the burial of Mary Watson who I strongly suspect to be his first wife
That marriage was by license, possibly because his new bride was living in a neighbouring town at the time
-
Hi jonwicken
Found a quick-ish remarriage in my family, but a bit later than yours.
Thomas Sharp's first wife was buried on 9th September 1852, and Thomas remarried in the 4th quarter of that year, i.e. between October and December. (Though I've suspected he already had a child with wife no. 2 before that! Still unravelling this family mystery...)
Other than that, not found many less than a year... which seems a shockingly quick turnaround by today's standards, but life was different then.
-
This one always stood out in my family tree ...
Couple married in 1736. Husband was buried on 02 APR 1744 with the following note in the burial register: "Killed by his waggon running over him".
His widow remarried on 18 APR 1744 with this comment in the marriage register: "Elis. Bates buryed her husband that was killed by his own waggon running over him near Burchester Apr. 2, but 15 days before she marryed G. Woods".
Pennie
-
I've found several instances of very quick re-marriages after bereavement, usually the families involved were not well-off and practicalities of child care and financial need seem very likely.
I've one woman who "married" three times, each time within weeks of the previous husband's death, with an increasing tribe of children changing surnames each time - but in one case I simply can't find an actual record of / date for the marriage, but the husband died shortly before census time - and by census time, she and her children were ensconced as "wife" with children all re-surnamed!
A woman with no extended family network for childcare would be in penury if widowed with very young children - and in a time when so many women died in childbirth, a widower could often find the most practical solution to an infant survivor was a swift re- marriage.
Often the partners seem to have known each other and their families as neighbours at least, living close at hand, before the events, too. Many practical problems would be solved that way.
-
If a spouse was incapacitated for a while, ie a long illness or institutionalised then the husband or wife met someone else and when their first spouse died they were free to remarry. Maybe they married someone they knew at work, a neighbours, friend, nurse etc, explaining a quick remarriage.
-
Judging by my ancestors, it was most definitely a matter of financial and practical expediency that the newly-widowed remarried often very quickly.
A widower would need a 24/7 housekeeper/nanny for his family (local morality and lack of money would mean that getting a paid woman in to help would be out of the question)
A widow would not be able to do a paid job outside the home because of her children, could not (for reasons of respectability) just work as live-in help in the house of a single man - in any case, working class houses would not have had enough bedrooms to accommodate such an arrangement!
Marriage ensured respectability, financial support and domestic services for all concerned.
Romance, sentimentality etc would have no place in the struggle to ensure the survival of bereaved families. Maybe love and respect blossomed later but harsh pragmatism, fortunately, dominated the lives of our ancestors and their domestic arrangements.
-
Sounds harsh, and certainly not romantic - but probably very true.
-
I've found lots of relatives (both male and female) who remarried between a year and 5 years after their spouse died.... I'm talking about the 1850s-1900s. Makes me wonder how they survived in the time before they remarried?
-
Occasionally things seemed quicker in the early 1700s than they actually were because of the old style calendar at that time which has often been altered in transcripts to make it look as if the year went from January to December when it didn't! Originally it was from March 25th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_(New_Style)_Act_1750
-
My ancestors brother had a wife who died in April 1845 and he had his banns read for his next wife in June 1845 and they wed on 14th July 1845. I think she was a neighbour. The second wife was the sister of my ancestor. So 2 brothers wed 2 sisters.
-
Going back to the query about which Thomas married which Ann. Have you looked into Ann Towells to see whether she was the right sort of age to marry Thomas jnr? I can't find an Ann Towells baptised in Curry Rivel, but there is one in Ilton about 6 miles away.
Ann Towels bapt 19 Jan 1718/19 d/o Edward and Mary.
A Mary Burt of Isle Abbotts married Edward Towels of Curry Rivel at Ilton on 17 April 1718. Looks like the couple also had a son Edward after Ann, but he died not long after baptism.
A Mary Towel (widow) was buried in Curry Rivel on 5 Nov 1769. I can't see a burial for an Edward Towel(ls) at Ilton or Curry Rivel, but there is an Edward Powell buried at CR on 31 Dec 1749. These are transcriptions on FreeBMD, so I haven't seen original record.
Added
meant FreeREG
-
See also thread about Frederick George Hirons - widowed and quickly remarried 4 times in 7 years!
-
When I saw your post it reminded me that I read somewhere that in medieval times, some widows were obligated to remarry or they could face being stripped of their inheritance.
I went a-googling in order to find something to back me up and I came across this little essay which is available free online.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pN-GTGzOngAC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=in+medieval+england+widows+forced+to+remarry&source=bl&ots=blR0lV5AJO&sig=FsgFpfW7VcpV3nQghib5vSqyQzo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4spTP_Z7JAhWD8RQKHbpnBlgQ6AEIPzAF#v=onepage&q=in%20medieval%20england%20widows%20forced%20to%20remarry&f=false
It seems that the religious position in England on people remarrying after marriage was always complicated but that men were encouraged to do so more than women and were treated differently. Some in the church recognised the economic necessity or remarriage too.
I appreciate that I'm talking about medieval times, but these are deep seated cultural attitudes and I assume they persisted for a long time.
-
Hi jonwicken,
Did you ever decide definitively which Thomas Hopkins married which Ann? My interest is focused on this family as it is also in the lines which I am presently researching. I agree with your comments suggesting Thomas senior was the one who married Ann widow Slade nee Stuckey/Tuckey. The next puzzle in this line is which of the children Baptised in Curry Rivel following 1744 belong to which Thomas/Ann. Jane Hopkins baptised 1746 March 16 could be child of Thomas sr. named after his first wife, or possibly child of Thomas jr named after his mother.
-
Hi jonwicken,
Did you ever decide definitively which Thomas Hopkins married which Ann? My interest is focused on this family as it is also in the lines which I am presently researching. I agree with your comments suggesting Thomas senior was the one who married Ann widow Slade nee Stuckey/Tuckey. The next puzzle in this line is which of the children Baptised in Curry Rivel following 1744 belong to which Thomas/Ann. Jane Hopkins baptised 1746 March 16 could be child of Thomas sr. named after his first wife, or possibly child of Thomas jr named after his mother.
Hello yes, I feel I have unravelled them somewhat. I actually visited Curry Rivel and went to the church last year and it was great to go there!
So I believe the following:
Thomas Hopkins (1693–after 1747 no burial found) married firstly Jane Maine|Hopkins (before 1698–1744) in 1716 on North Curry.
Their son was Thomas Hopkins (1720–1799)
Thomas Hopkins senior married secondly Ann Read|Stuckey|Slade|Hopkins (c1710/14–1747), widow of John Stuckey and Robert Slade, in Curry Rivel in 1744.
Their daughter was Sarah Hopkins (1745–?)
Thomas Hopkins (1720–1799) married Ann Towells|Hopkins (1719–after 1762) in Curry Rivel in 1744.
Their children were:
Jane Hopkins (1746–1746) named after his mother.
Ann Hopkins|Hillard (1749–after 1787)
Thomas Hopkins (1751–1820)
Mary Hopkins|Hussey (1755–1845)
John Hopkins (1759–1824)
Jenny Hopkins (1762–1763)
Sarah was baptised on 8 September 1745 and Jane was baptised on 16 March 1746 so they are not siblings.
I assume that Jane was the daughter of Thomas junior as otherwise he would not have named a daughter his mother.
I have never found what happened to Sarah baptised in 1745, or indeed when her mother Ann Towells|Hopkins died, or when Thomas senior died.
Still some mysteries to unravel.
I do know from the will of his grandson George Hopkins, that Thomas Hopkins junior must have left a will, but never been able to find out more about it due to the Somerset wills being lost in WWII.
There is more on that here in this thread:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=862417.0 (https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=862417.0)
I have also written on another thread about the earlier form of the surname being interchangeable between Atkins and Hopkins here:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=757292 (https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=757292)
Jon
-
Hello again jonwicken,
We are getting a little off the main topic of this post, however in regards to your response.
Your list of children of Thomas jr. (1720-1799) and Ann Towells-Hopkins includes...
Mary Hopkins|Hussey (1755–1845)
There seems to be good evidence that the Mary Hopkins who married Henry Hussey 14 September 1783, at Curry Rivel is not the Mary Hopkins daughter of Thomas jr. and Ann.
The line I am researching is through the Salway family. James Salway born and raised in Curry Rivel married Mary Hopkins of Curry Rivel (then 16 1/2 years of age) 24 December 1771. They have 4 children baptised Curry Rivel, 1772-1784, which excludes this Mary as being the one who married Henry Hussey in 1783.
Refer to - https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MHCR-X23 which refers to this conflict of two Mary Hopkins. Read the attached "alert notes"
-
Hello again jonwicken,
We are getting a little off the main topic of this post, however in regards to your response.
Your list of children of Thomas jr. (1720-1799) and Ann Towells-Hopkins includes...
Mary Hopkins|Hussey (1755–1845)
There seems to be good evidence that the Mary Hopkins who married Henry Hussey 14 September 1783, at Curry Rivel is not the Mary Hopkins daughter of Thomas jr. and Ann.
The line I am researching is through the Salway family. James Salway born and raised in Curry Rivel married Mary Hopkins of Curry Rivel (then 16 1/2 years of age) 24 December 1771. They have 4 children baptised Curry Rivel, 1772-1784, which excludes this Mary as being the one who married Henry Hussey in 1783.
Refer to - https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MHCR-X23 which refers to this conflict of two Mary Hopkins. Read the attached "alert notes"
Thanks for highlighting this so I can put the following out there on the internet, as I did indeed have a good look at these two Mary Hopkins and the Salway and Hussey marriages at the time I researched the Hopkins line.
The marriage of Mary Hopkins to James Salway in 1771 does not state she was under 21 as would be expected if she was only 16:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60858/records/901621497?tid=5705813&pid=110045727495&queryId=9527914d-a3ad-4a42-90b2-5286a03191c7&_phsrc=VSl10569&_phstart=successSource (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60858/records/901621497?tid=5705813&pid=110045727495&queryId=9527914d-a3ad-4a42-90b2-5286a03191c7&_phsrc=VSl10569&_phstart=successSource)
Further to this, Mary Hopkins|Salway's burial in 1813 gives an age at death of 70, so she was born in c1742/3, not 1755:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60859/records/1721532?tid=&pid=&queryId=786dd5df-91d1-4d55-9943-6a14a87544e6&_phsrc=VSl10573&_phstart=successSource (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60859/records/1721532?tid=&pid=&queryId=786dd5df-91d1-4d55-9943-6a14a87544e6&_phsrc=VSl10573&_phstart=successSource)
Mary Hopkins|Salway would therefore be about 41 to 42 at the birth of her last child in 1784 which would fit with the menopause.
The Mary Hopkins who was baptised in 1755 at Curry Rivel, daughter of Thomas and Ann Hopkins, was therefore the one who married Henry Hussey in 1783 at Curry Rivel.
One of the witnesses at this 1783 marriage was Thomas Hopkins, who is either her father born in 1720 or her brother baptised in 1751.
She is also assumed to be the Mary Hopkins who was a witness to the marriage of her brother John Hopkins to Sarah French at Curry Rivel in 1782.
Mary Hopkins|Hussey was buried in 1845 and her age at burial is stated to be 85. She would actually have been 89, but as her husband Henry Hussey was born around 1762/3 she probably just knocked some years off her age.
My late father's DNA has matches to at least four descendants of Henry Hussey and Mary Hopkins|Hussey (see attached image), so based on all of the above I am as certain as I can be this is all correct.
The various online trees with James Salway and Mary Hopkins that have her as the Mary Hopkins baptised in 1755 at Curry Rivel are incorrect.
I never actually found Mary Hopkins|Salway's baptism around c1742/3 to know how she fits in, but will try and have another look!
Kind regards,
Jon
-
Thank you jonwicken,
Your clarification of the two Mary Hopkins at Curry Rivel is thourough and revealing of the misinformation found on some web pages. Verification of online information is not always easy and I am appreciative of your reasoning.
-
Thank you jonwicken,
Your clarification of the two Mary Hopkins at Curry Rivel is thourough and revealing of the misinformation found on some web pages. Verification of online information is not always easy and I am appreciative of your reasoning.
You are welcome. There is such a lot of incorrect information there and with it getting copied over and over again, it is hard to undo.
When family lines are unclear I often research everyone with the same name in a parish or area and this what I did with the Hopkins family Curry Rivel.
Variants of Hopkins are Atkins and Hotkins so maybe she was baptised as a variant or maybe she was a widow.
I wish I had been able to crack the mystery of who Mary Hopkins|Salway was.
-
The witnesses at the 1771 marriage of James Salway and Mary Hopkins were Thomas Sugg and Margaret Andrews:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/60858/images/engl78030_d-p-cur-r-2-1-3_m_00033?pId=1621497 (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/60858/images/engl78030_d-p-cur-r-2-1-3_m_00033?pId=1621497)
I have tried to see if the witnesses were family members but have not been able to establish much.
Thomas Sugg married in Curry Rivel in 1774 to Ann Morish. He was of Curry Rivel and she was of Aller in Somerset:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60858/records/1621518?tid=&pid=&queryId=f106ca6d-567c-4061-9e67-4e23648d2e4c&_phsrc=VSl10619&_phstart=successSource (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60858/records/1621518?tid=&pid=&queryId=f106ca6d-567c-4061-9e67-4e23648d2e4c&_phsrc=VSl10619&_phstart=successSource)
There are not many Andrews in Somerset but I have found things that may be of interest.
Firstly a Thomas Andrews married a Mary Hopkins in Curry Rivel in 1777. Neither have a marital status but were of the parish:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60858/records/1621544?tid=&pid=&queryId=6311e64e-2f7f-49e3-a99b-50e8568f327f&_phsrc=VSl10621&_phstart=successSource (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60858/records/1621544?tid=&pid=&queryId=6311e64e-2f7f-49e3-a99b-50e8568f327f&_phsrc=VSl10621&_phstart=successSource)
A Margaret Andrews was buried at Aller on 19 February 1797:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60856/records/842843?tid=&pid=&queryId=588305bc-6802-405d-8002-3b30d0084394&_phsrc=VSl10627&_phstart=successSource (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60856/records/842843?tid=&pid=&queryId=588305bc-6802-405d-8002-3b30d0084394&_phsrc=VSl10627&_phstart=successSource)
There is a marriage of a Samuel Andrews to Margaret Reynols in Aller in 1771:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60858/records/513146?tid=&pid=&queryId=8077b20e-14c0-4053-8ab5-d19a660a019b&_phsrc=VSl10631&_phstart=successSource (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60858/records/513146?tid=&pid=&queryId=8077b20e-14c0-4053-8ab5-d19a660a019b&_phsrc=VSl10631&_phstart=successSource)
So I am wondering if Aller, which is very close to Curry Rivel may provide the key.