MORE THAN ONE MARRIAGE CEREMONY/IS THIS POSSIBLE

[Stanwix England]

I've got a couple who married twice.

Their first marriage was bigamous. The wife was already married, although apparently separated.

They married again once her first husband had died. I have no evidence to suggest that they were ever caught, and they appear to have gone through both marriages without incident.

[sandiep]

we have a couple in Hubbies family had children from 1873 but didnt marry till 1904 I took many years to find this and I think you will find this is more common than you imagine

[Maiden Stone]

Dear ROOTSCHATTERS - I am researching an ancestor who was born in 1847 and died in 1917 in Sheffield. His 1st child was born in 1874 and therefor he must have married in 1872/3. His background is irish, and I have heard from the living family, he was catholic. However he married in Nottingham in 1908 at the Parish Church of St. Peter 'according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Established Church. I have the marriage certificate which I recently ordered from Southport GRO. He is aged 61 and his wife 56. His wife is the mother of all his children according to the 1911 census - it looks as if they repeated their marriage ceremony - Is there a knowledgeable Rootschatter who can explain the multiple marriage custom (ie the same couple getting married twice) ?             
                                                                                                                                     

Have you found birth registrations of children to confirm that wife of 1908 was their mother? (My Irish grandparents told fibs on 1911 census so that it seemed all children on census were from their marriage.)
Have you found the couple on each census 1881-1901?
Was the wife also Irish and/or Catholic? I've come across a few couples in 19th century whose marriage in a Catholic church in Ireland wasn't legally valid because they belonged to different denominations so they had a later wedding ceremony at a church of Ireland or registry Office. One couple was elderly and had several adult children when they legitimised their union. There were also cases of C of I men repudiating their Catholic wives and getting away with it because the wedding had been in a Catholic church.
If they ever lived in Scotland they may have had an irregular marriage.
Could they have married in a foreign country?   
 

[Lisajb]

I have a couple who married in their 50s, after the birth of seven children, plus an extra one for the wife, born before the couple had gotten together.

[geraldine96]

Thanks to all of you who have replied; the post has generated a lot of interesting possibilities; i'll answer some of your questions with this latest post.
Tickety Boo - the 1911 census says they were married for 37 yrs. They had 8 children, 6 were still living.
bearkat - the marriage cert dated 1904 has the groom listed as  a bachelor and the bride is a spinster. Each one has a different address but only the street is named. The marriage took place in Nottingham.
falkyrn - I estimated a possible marriage date based on the 1st child's dob but I haven't found any records to confirm there was an earlier marriage. I think the info you provided re introduction of the old age pension sounds convincing and explains their late marriage or remarriage.
maiden stone - the early civil birth records don't name the mother (no maiden name). There is a birth record of their 1st child (assumed 1st child)whose year of birth is 1875. The record does give both parents' names and the names correspond with the 1908 marriage cert and 1911 census. However you have suggested that a marriage in Scotland may not be registered/irregular - this is interesting because their child born in 1875 was born in Scotland, Perhaps the 1st marriage was held in Scotland. The bride didn't have Irish origins, her parents were church of England. All your replies have been v. interesting , I'll return to my research and see if I can find an earlier marriage which as some of you have suggested was considered irregular; it's abit of a mystery........thank srootschatters, geraldine96

[geraldine96]

thanks for your reply lisajb, I have just posted a reply to answer earlier posts re the' more than one marriage ceremony; question and it looks as if late marriages weren't 'out of the ordinary'. Even after a couple have had a large family and lived together for a number of years.                            geraldine96                         
          y

[cbowley]

My paternal grandfather and his first wife married twice with no divorce in between. There are two certificates. The first time was in 1927 in a Register Office. The second time was on the same day/month in 1930 in a church. The first certificate has their ages adjusted so the bride appears 4 years younger than the groom although she was actually 12 years older. On the second one she settled for appearing one year older than him. Using the same day/month seems very sensible. It is difficult enough remembering one wedding anniversary. Imagine having to remember two.

A few years later the bride was committed to an asylum with religious mania. I suspect that is related to her wanting to repeat the wedding in a church. Earlier in 1930 my grandfather's father died, leaving enough money to his only child to buy a house and presumably also enough to afford the church ceremony the bride wanted.

They divorced in 1946, shortly before my grandfather married the next door neighbour. I wonder if they had to consider whether there should be two divorces to balance the two marriages. The neighbour was also divorced. She worked as a solicitor's assistant. Maybe she got a trade discount on divorces.

So, in total my grandfather lived with three women and married three times, twice to the first one, not at all to the second one (Gwen, who already married someone else in 1932 when she was 22 and that groom pretended to be 39 but was actually 52 necessitating a later official adjustment to the marriage certificate) and once to the third one. The second one was my father's biological mother. My father didn't work out that he was illegitimate until the third one died in 1991. He thought it was hilarious and was minded to change the family name to Fitzbowley.

[Rosinish]

the early civil birth records don't name the mother (no maiden name). There is a birth record of their 1st child (assumed 1st child)whose year of birth is 1875. The record does give both parents' names and the names correspond with the 1908 marriage cert and 1911 census. However you have suggested that a marriage in Scotland may not be registered/irregular - this is interesting because their child born in 1875 was born in Scotland, Perhaps the 1st marriage was held in Scotland.

Your post is confusing & contradicting...

You say "early civil birth records don't name the mother  (no maiden name)"
but then say...
"There is a birth record of their 1st child (assumed 1st child)whose year of birth is 1875. The record does give both parents' names"

I'm not understanding the contradiction at all

I don't understand any civil birth record not giving the maiden/former name of the mother i.e. can you please explain?

What is the exact info. given for the parents on the 1875 Scottish birth cert?

Annie

[geraldine96]

sorry rosinish - I'll try and make that account clearer. Their 1st child has a birth record on the Scotland select births and baptism records (born 1875) The Scotland Select Births and Baptisms register Luckily gives the parents' names, the mother is identified using her maiden name . The other children all born between 1875 and 1889 have births recorded on the birth INDEX - that's what I meant to say in my earlier reply. The civil birth index for that timespan  doesn't name the mother.
I would have to use the index to order a full birth certificate from the GRO Suoth'port to get the parents' details.
I use Ancestry to track down records. There are quite a few family trees on Ancestyr that are connected to the family I am interested in - so I can refer to research on these trees and double check it   ygeraldine96