A Question About Bigamy

[antonymark]

Hi Everyone,

I'm chasing a very complicated story. A GRO marriage certificate arrives by almost every post!

A man leaves his wife of seven years in 1897 to join the Royal Marine Artillery. He marries someone else using his own name in the same year (wife 1 still alive).

In 1899 his navy record shows him as "Run".

By 1901 wife 1 is a visitor in a household showing as married. He is with wife 2 under a different name.

In 1911 wife 1 is a servant housekeeper in a household shown as married. He is with wife 2 under the same pseudonym and four children. One of the daughters has as a middle name his original surname.

Later in 1911 wife 1 begins divorce proceedings having heard from his step siblings that he is using a different name (the name he is using in 1901 and 1911) and living with another woman. Decree absolute is on 26th October 1912. Wife 1 remarries on 11th November 1912.

In 1921 he is with wife 2. Wife 1 with new husband.

Wife 1 dies on 17th July 1937.

I have tonight seen on freebmd what looks like a 1938 marriage of him to wife 2. The index shows his original surname and the pseudonym and her maiden name and the pseudonym they have lived under for nearly forty years. I've just ordered the cert to see exactly what it says.

My questions are: Could he still be potentially charged with bigamy even after the divorce or the death of wife 1? How likely was it that any investigation into him would be going on many years after the bigamous second marriage or his desertion from the Navy? How risky was it for him to (seemingly) to declare his original name on the 1938 marriage?

Thanks for reading to the end and I look forward to any thoughts.

Best wishes, Tony,

[AlanBoyd]

I wondered if there might be some sort of limitation period for the crime of bigamy, but an AI has told me this:

Under English law, there is no statutory limitation period for prosecuting the crime of bigamy. Bigamy is governed by Section 57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which classifies it as a felony punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment. Unlike summary offences (minor crimes tried in magistrates’ courts, which have a six-month limitation period), bigamy is an indictable offence subject to no time restrictions.
This aligns with the broader principle in UK criminal law that there is no statute of limitations for serious offences triable in the Crown Court. Prosecution can occur regardless of how much time has passed since the bigamous marriage took place, provided sufficient evidence exists. However, exceptions to liability exist if the accused reasonably believed their original spouse had been continuously absent for seven years or if the prior marriage was legally dissolved.

[Milliepede]

Are you saying he married wife number 2 twice?  Once in 1938 when he was free to do so as wife number 1 had died and once in 1897? 

[RJ_Paton]

He marries someone else using his own name in the same year (wife 1 still alive).

Do you have any evidence that he actually married No 2 while marriage to No 1 was still valid.

It is only Bigamy if the person involved knowingly goes through a recognised form of marriage while still married.

It is not Bigamy if they simply call themselves man & wife without any actual process of marriage.

[antonymark]

Are you saying he married wife number 2 twice?  Once in 1938 when he was free to do so as wife number 1 had died and once in 1897?

Yes. I have bought the 1897 cert and after finding the freebmd entry tonight I have ordered the second.

Tony.

[antonymark]

He marries someone else using his own name in the same year (wife 1 still alive).

Do you have any evidence that he actually married No 2 while marriage to No 1 was still valid.

It is only Bigamy if the person involved knowingly goes through a recognised form of marriage while still married.

It is not Bigamy if they simply call themselves man & wife without any actual process of marriage.

I have the certificate for the 1897 marriage to wife 2 . He has used his original name but fudged his father's name but it is clearly him as rank or profession given as "Gunner RMA" which leads to his Navy record that names his married sister as next of kin and a wife at the same address where wife 1 was in 1901.

Tony.

[locksmith]

Is it possible that when wife 1 found your man in 1911 and began divorce proceedings, that the bigamous marriage came to light at that time. In which case the 2nd marriage would have been annulled at that time and he would have then served his sentence.

Why they would then leave it so long to marry legally I can't imagine.

If not the above, during these times bigamous marriage normally came out only when a previous wife found out, so it is unlikely that anyone would know.

Simon

[antonymark]

Is it possible that when wife 1 found your man in 1911 and began divorce proceedings, that the bigamous marriage came to light at that time. In which case the 2nd marriage would have been annulled at that time and he would have then served his sentence.

Why they would then leave it so long to marry legally I can't imagine.

If not the above, during these times bigamous marriage normally came out only when a previous wife found out, so it is unlikely that anyone would know.

Simon

The divorce record goes into detail about how he could not be found. Wife 1's sister gives a long statement about how she went in search of him in the places where he was thought to be working.

This sister enters a workhouse in 1915 giving name of her nearest relative as wife 1 and the new husband at the address where they are in 1921.

I said it was complicated!

Tony.

[antonymark]

Is it possible that when wife 1 found your man in 1911 and began divorce proceedings, that the bigamous marriage came to light at that time. In which case the 2nd marriage would have been annulled at that time and he would have then served his sentence.

Why they would then leave it so long to marry legally I can't imagine.

If not the above, during these times bigamous marriage normally came out only when a previous wife found out, so it is unlikely that anyone would know.

Simon

This sister enters a workhouse in 1915 giving name of her nearest relative as wife 1 and the new husband at the address where they are in 1921.

This workhouse admission is the proof of the link of wife 1 to the second husband who is my relative.

Tony.