RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Stewart R on Thursday 08 January 26 11:05 GMT (UK)
-
I have reason to believe that my great grandfathers 1st marriage in 1893 may have been annulled. I presume divorce was unlikely as he married the same lady (my great grandmother) "again" about 6 years later in 1899, just after the birth of their second child together! (my grandfather was the third child) I have a tentative theory as to why the first was annulled as she was only 20 at the time, and i believe the consent that "must" have been given at the time may later have been brought into question.
He was beginning to move up the military ranks, so i suspect having children before the 2ND and presumable only valid marriage, and as it seems effectively out of wedlock, may have been quite uncomfortable, if not scandalous. He must have rode the waves of scandal as he ultimately became a decorated army Captain
My question is, would the annulment, with a possible reason be published and available anywhere. I can't see anything on ancestry.
My great Great Grandparents names were Isaac William Reid & Minnie Nellie Wolfendale. If anyone has access to such records, out side of "ancestry"
Regards Stewart
-
Have you got both marriage certificates?
-
You don’t say what religion they were or what makes you think the first marriage was annulled.
If your great grandfather was already in the Army he may have married without his Commanding Officer’s consent. It varied depending on his rank and/or age at the time, which he would have needed that for his wife to be taken on strength.
-
Both images are on FindMyPast
https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS%2FPLY%2F004634922%2F00098&parentid=GBPRS%2FM%2F35162620%2F2
https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS%2FPLY%2F004634635%2F00152&parentid=GBPRS%2FM%2F35136711%2F1
-
As above, the requirements of Kings Regs around marriage for soldiers is far more likely to have been the issue.
The first marriage would still be valid and legal but a second "marriage" once permission has been given to join the married establishment is quite often seen.
-
Thank you all for your interest & information, certainly food for thought. Those are the certificates i have Comberton, thank you
In trying to get my head round this I've assumed that the first marriage would be recognised and valid by law but not necessarily by the Military, without consent of his commanding officer. Then upon his consent, another full church wedding would need to take place for it to be recognised.
After his first wedding, he was posted to Mauritius for nearly 3 years and I've always assumed his wife went with him, but it now looks more likely that she stayed at home. The second marriage to Minnie is the only one recognised on his military record as well and there is no mention of his 1st child either (He did marry again after Minnie died prematurely, but that was a few years later, but that is another story ::)) This indiscretion didn't do his military career any harm as he was very well thought of in higher circles, and was promoted right through ranks to Captain, even awarded the MBE for his services.
So in a nutshell, i can therefore presumably conclude that no annulment occurred.
-
Both marriages were by Banns. There were 3 readings of their Marriage Banns, a 3 week period for parents or others to object & the bride did not hide her age, recorded as 20. Even if conducted in a church remote from where parents resided, a marriage is not annulled due to lack of consent or minor fib, takes something more serious, eg lawful impediment or it being a bigamous marriage for one of the parties.
Report of the Royal commission on the laws of marriage 1868
Marriages of Minors
The consent of parents or guardians ...is so far required by law, that the parent or guardian, by publicly forbidding the banns or the solemnization, or by entry in the registrar's marriage notice book, may prevent the banns from proceeding, or the licence or certificate from issuing, or the marriage from taking place... But...if actually solemnized without the requisite consent, is valid in law.
also page vi - Banns.
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=8ogzAQAAMAAJ&pg=GBS.PR8&hl=en_GB
or https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112105145611&seq=19
-
He perhaps didn't tell the Army he was married 1893. When he returned home he asked and wed, and submitted proof. The marriages were in different churches and no checks made of paper records, statements of bachelor and spinster 1899 accepted as true. As far as the Army was concerned, he did things in the right order, no Kings Regulations broken.
So not a case of them not recognising a legal marriage, rather not being aware of the first. Their choice ro reaffirm their vows in church rather than a Registry Office.
-
Thank you Jon-ni.
So again I'm "assuming" parental/guardian consent is not necessarily given by a signed permission, but moreover an objection of the marriage by rejection of the banns being read in the first instance, and that in the eyes of the law the clergy only need the declaration of the couple to solemnize the marriage.
it does seem a little extreme that they had to go through a full ceremony again just to please the military....and also, presumably as a result of the military's stance that their first child not to be recognised.
So much for dry January, i think i need a drink :)
-
Thanks again Jon_ni
Sorry, i posted my last reply just after your second message.
Begining to make sense now thanks.
-
This was something commonly done in the army, and wouldn't probably need to be hidden.
I have a copy of correspondence from the registrar general's office in the 1920s discussing it - the RG wasn't happy about the double marriages of servicemen but recognised them as being "widely practiced".
The birth registration of the first child will no doubt be in the form of that to a married couple.
Famous air ace (Sir) Douglas Bader married his wife twice in the 1930s, I assume for the same reason.
-
Given what I've been advised by all the fine responces, a little further digging has revealed to me that the Child (my great Aunt) would not have been classed as "on strength" being born before CO permission to marry was given. She was, as far as the Army was concerned, illegitimate. It would now possibly explain a family mystery as to why she, by now a 12 year old, did not accompany the rest of the now expanded family, when my Great-Grandfather was posted overseas yet again.
-
I believe that the version of Queens Regulations which was applicable at the time was the one published in 1859 (the next was not until 1895). QRs 1859 contains 3 pages of rules concerning marriages of soldiers. It's too long to reproduce it all here*, but suffice it to say that if the first marriage had occurred without the Commanding Officer's consent - which was only sparingly given with no more than 4 soldiers per company of 60 men being permitted on the Regimental strength - then if later consent was given, a new ceremony might have been necessary to meet the stipulation in QRs that a valid certificate of marriage from the officiating priest had to be presented to the Adjutant before the marriage could be entered into the Regimental Marriage Book. Similarly the births of any children born before the marriage was recorded in the Marriage Book would not be recognised until after the marriage itself had been recognised.
* You can view the whole document on the Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/queensregulation00grea/page/396/mode/2up) - see pages 387-399
-
OP has not told us a significant detail: Was this man a soldier or an officer at the time of his first marriage? Clearly he was an officer later
-
On the 1st marriage he was a 2nd Corporal, many soldiers married unofficially but the wife had no rights to reside in camp/barracks or to accompany the regiment. She had to live in lodgings in Plymouth paid for out of their own pockets.
On the second he was now a Staff Sergeant, Royal Engineers, entitlement likely meant married quarter accomodation by 1897 in somewhere as large as Plymouth plus paid travel and rations for wife & children if the regiment moved or was posted abroad.
This article quotes "Grierson (1899): "Marriage is allowed to all the staff-sergeants, to 50% of the other sergeants, 4% of the corporals and privates in the cavalry, artillery and engineers, and 3% in the infantry."
https://dressuniformhire.co.uk/pages/a-military-wedding-history-tradition
https://dressuniformhire.co.uk/blogs/history/asking-permission-to-marry-in-the-military
A Soldier is not to marry without a written sanction, obtained from his Commanding Officer. Should he marry without this sanction, his Wife will not be allowed in Barracks, nor to follow the Regiment, nor will she participate in the indulgences granted to the Wives of other Soldiers.
"Whilst such a union was not something the army could disturb despite army regulations, it meant that such a married soldier would normally have to sleep in his barracks and his wife elsewhere. At some later date a soldier’s wife might be given permission to ‘go on the strength’ of her husband’s regiment."
https://wightonfamily.ca/genealogy/essays/armywives.html
https://blog.forceswarrecords.com/service-in-the-british-army
a valid certificate of marriage from the officiating priest had to be presented to the Adjutant before the marriage could be entered into the Regimental Marriage Book
The snip indicates a GRO cert was proof, and was to be transcribed into the Regimental Register. The officiating minister held the only copies of the marriage register ledgers on the day of marriage and immediately afterwards, so issued any required GRO certs. An additional copy became available once the priest had forwarded his quarterly return to London. Once books were full one duplicate ledger was deposited with the GRO District, the other retained by the church, hence the FindMyPast images. One sometimes sees annotation "cert seen" in service records next to details of wife & children / NOK, even the odd English GRO marriage or birth cert in Boer/WW1 era records.
-
He was only a corporal at the time of the 1st marriage and Staff Sergeant at the time of the 2ND in 1899. He got his commission in 1911 a few years after his final overseas posting. Spent WWI in liverpool and was effectively in charge of the defence of the river Mersey
(Just noticed you've beaten to the post me again Jon_ni :) )
-
Given what I've been advised by all the fine responces, a little further digging has revealed to me that the Child (my great Aunt) would not have been classed as "on strength" being born before CO permission to marry was given. She was, as far as the Army was concerned, illegitimate. It would now possibly explain a family mystery as to why she, by now a 12 year old, did not accompany the rest of the now expanded family, when my Great-Grandfather was posted overseas yet again.
She may have been unrecognised by the army but she was not illegitimate.