Widow/Widowers time period before remarrying in the 1700s

[jonwicken]

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         

[whiteout7]

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.

[Ayashi]

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.

[jonwicken]

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

[Ayashi]

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.

[Janelle]

...

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

[stanmapstone]

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

[Marmalady]

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

[clairec666]

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.