Marriage annulment

[Stewart R]

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

[Milliepede]

Have you got both marriage certificates?

[Jebber]

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.

[Comberton]

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

[AntonyMMM]

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.

[Stewart R]

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.

 

[Jon_ni]

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

[Jon_ni]

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.

[Stewart R]

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