* are the same couple married twice 7 Years apart?

[Spanner48]

In 1764 Henry Sanderson in the parish of St.clement Danes aged 30+ (Batchelor) marries Christian Kitchen (Widow) (no age given) of St George Parish but same county of Middlesex, signed by Henry & Christian Elliot? (assuming maiden name) Both Banns & marriage records available.

In 1771 Henry Sanderson of St.Clement Danes is now stated as a Widow (no age given) marries Christian Elliot age 22+ . Henry Sandersons signature is distinctive and the same on all documents so I'm certain its the same Henry. If it wasn't for the fact that Christian uses both surnames on the first document (1764) I would assume its a different lady with the same first name? Research tells me that ages on such old documents are ambiguous therefore can not be relied upon but unless this query is obvious to anyone (I hope so) I am confused as to why they would marry twice. Two lots of bonds and banns & marriage 7 years apart with the 1771 marriage Henry now a widow!

[tatewise]

Welcome to the FHUG.

I have moved this to the Research forum as it is not really an FH General Usage question.

I suspect it would be helpful if we could see the two documents.
See the FHUG Knowledge Base Forum Usage Tips under Attachments for advice.

[ColeValleyGirl]

One possibility: Henry might have had an inconvenient existing wife when he married the first time (thus committing bigamy). If said wife subsequently died, he may have thought it prudent to marry again (as a widower this time) to regularise matters.

[Spanner48]

Thank you Mike for pointing me in the right direction, apologies for error.. Thanks Helen so many possibilities! it's thrown me that it appears to be the same lady as well in both documents having the surname Elliot in both. I will add the documents to my original post.

[davidf]

My Great Great Great Grandmother Catherine Blaylock had two marriages 9 years apart - both to someone with identical First and Surnames (Robert Faulder) - but they were different husbands!

When she married Robert Faulder (2) in August 1803 Catherine Blaylock was described as Catherine Faulder, widow, She signed as Catherine Faulder, late Faulder, heretofore Blaylock. This implies a previous marriage to a Faulder.

Parish Register Marriage Blaylock-Faulder(2)

Screenshot from 2022-03-31 12-03-27.png (180.94 KiB) Viewed 3307 times

Presumably she was so happy with her first husband that she attempted a "repeat purchase"

My first afternoon in Carlisle Record Office found huge amounts of information proving this and I learnt a lot about old administration bonds - Robert Faulder (1) did me the service of dying intestate! The staff thought it was most unfair that I walked in with a hazy idea about who my Great Grand Parents were and walked out a few hours later with this "rumour" confirmed. The value of real records in a real record office.

So don't exclude the possibility that there were two wives but with identical names?

[RS3100]

I have two similar examples in my tree, one involving my great-grandparents. In both cases, one party to the marriage was still married to someone else, despite declaring to the contrary, rendering the marriages bigamous. They married again after the death of the "inconvenient" party, not necessarily immediately following that person's demise. In my great-grandparents case it appears that the legitimate second marriage was prompted by the imminent expectation of my grandfather's birth!

[Baysig8]

A similar situation in my research turned out to be the same groom; his first wife died and he then married a relative of hers.
Often in families the given names were repeated....honouring a parent or grandparent or other relative - or their religion. So that's certainly possible.

Elliot is also not an uncommon name - nor was Christian, then. Have a couple in my ancestry.

(Often - actually very often - when an infant or child died, that child's name/names would be given to another baby... not relevant here I feel, but it does highlight what we see sometimes as age discrepancies, which turn out to be different children with the same name! Tricky, too, as sometime there is only 12 months between the deceased and the new child of the same name and same parents.)

In your case, if it was the same Christian both times, she would have been 15 at first marriage. Possible, certainly. There may have had to be a signature from her father permitting the underage marriage, though? Does that appear in your research?

Might be worth checking any birth registers for all the Christian Elliots in the years both Christians could have been born.

It seems the groom's signature is the same. The bride is not as definite - I think. Could be down to different pens, though.

I've given more questions than answers, sorry - but sometimes that sends us off in a direction not investigated yet! Good luck

[Baysig8]

One other confusion....the surname Kitchen (possibly Kitchener - although the final lower case 'n' in the 'in' has a tail also.)

Why was she named as Christian Kitchen/er? and not Elliot?? Witness being Wm Elliot. Can't always assume a witness is a father or relative.
Have you followed up on the Kitchen/Kitchener angle? That could prove interesting!

[Martin Tolley]

The new edition of Who Do You Think You Are magazine has a similar question. Although the circumstances are a little different, the concluding sentence of the paragraph concerns the 7 year gap,and might indicate that one or other of your two folk were technically unable to marry initially.

"If Thomas was already married, perhaps he had news of his first wife after the banns had been called. In this case, he might have waited until she had died to remarry – or until seven years had passed since he had heard of her, which was a defence to a bigamy charge."

[jamespam]

I too have Gt x2 Grandparents who have two marriage certificates two years apart 1858 and 1860 one a civil and a 2nd a Roman Catholic ceremony. How did they manage to do that? Their two eldest children were born 1854 and 1857.
Any comments would be welcome. What do you think the 'back story' is?

[tatewise]

Maybe the Civil Registry Office marriage was hurriedly or secretly arranged with few if any guests.
Notice that they were living at different addresses.

The church ceremony was perhaps demanded by their catholic relatives together with wider family guests.
At that time they appear to be living at the same address "as a married couple"?
Interestingly they still claim to be bachelor and spinster, so perhaps the family were unaware of the Civil ceremony.

You may never know for sure.

[davidf]

I too have Gt x2 Grandparents who have two marriage certificates two years apart 1858 and 1860 one a civil and a 2nd a Roman Catholic ceremony. How did they manage to do that? Their two eldest children were born 1854 and 1857.
Any comments would be welcome. What do you think the 'back story' is?

We can only speculate - unless you discover a source that explains all!
(This occurred with a relative who had two marriages, 1st Civil, 2nd Church - and it was all documented by their daughter in the family biography and said so much about attitudes in the early C20th - see another post elsewhere.)

[jamespam]

Thanks Mike - Yes it will remain a mystery. The hurredly arranged first civil marriage was a case of shutting the door after the proverbial horse had bolted!

[LornaCraig]

The church marriage appears to have been at the Church of England parish church (St Mark's, Clerkenwell). What makes you think it was a Roman Catholic marriage? Do you know they were Catholics?

The Marriage Act of 1753 decreed that to be legally recognised in England and Wales a marriage had to be performed by the Church of England, Jews or Quakers. This meant that Roman Catholics and members of other religions had to be married according to Anglican rites.

The 1836 Marriage Act introduced civil marriages which were sometimes more acceptable to Catholics than an Anglican ceremony. It also made it possible for religious groups to apply for registration of their buildings with the Registrar General so that they could conduct weddings if a Registrar and two witnesses were present.

I’m not sure if this has any bearing on your example. If you know the couple were Catholics perhaps they opted for a Register Office ceremony in preference to Anglican, but that doesn’t explain why they had an Anglican ceremony two years later!

You say the two eldest children were born before both marriages. Do you happen to know if the couple had a child born between the dates of the two marriages? If so do you know how the parents were recorded when the birth was registered?

[jamespam]

The church marriage appears to have been at the Church of England parish church (St Mark's, Clerkenwell). What makes you think it was a Roman Catholic marriage? Do you know they were Catholics?
Ah that is an interesting question Lorna. He had Jewish heritage, I suspect secular. She came from Cork in Ireland and the family account is that our Roman Catholicism dates from her entry into our Jewish family.

The Marriage Act of 1753 decreed that to be legally recognised in England and Wales a marriage had to be performed by the Church of England, Jews or Quakers. This meant that Roman Catholics and members of other religions had to be married according to Anglican rites.I made the assumption that St Marks, Clerkenwell was a catholic church.Interesting.

The 1836 Marriage Act introduced civil marriages which were sometimes more acceptable to Catholics than an Anglican ceremony. It also made it possible for religious groups to apply for registration of their buildings with the Registrar General so that they could conduct weddings if a Registrar and two witnesses were present.

I’m not sure if this has any bearing on your example. If you know the couple were Catholics perhaps they opted for a Register Office ceremony in preference to Anglican, but that doesn’t explain why they had an Anglican ceremony two years later!

You say the two eldest children were born before both marriages. Do you happen to know if the couple had a child born between the dates of the two marriages? No the next child was born in March 1861 see attachedIf so do you know how the parents were recorded when the birth was registered? No I don't Lorna I will chase that up

[jamespam]

see attached

[LornaCraig]

Interesting. The combination of Jewish and Catholic would explain why they opted for a civil marriage (first time). A Catholic wouldn't have wanted a Jewish ceremony and neither of them would have wanted an Anglican ceremony. And yet they had an Anglican ceremony two years later!

I wonder if this is another of those cases where the first marriage was technically illegal because one of the parties was already married to someone else. The groom was 34 at the time of the first marriage. He might well have had a previous wife still living.

Another issue is the bride's age. She was only about 18 when her first child was born. The age of majority then was 21 so she would have needed parental consent to marry before the birth of that child. This may be why she didn't marry until 1858 when she didn't need parental consent.

One interesting point is that they had the same two witnesses at both marriage ceremonies. So the witnesses were complicit in something. Either they knew the first marriage was illegal or they knew the second one was (because you can't marry the same person twice unless there has been a divorce in between).

[jamespam]

Interesting. The combination of Jewish and Catholic would explain why they opted for a civil marriage (first time). A Catholic wouldn't have wanted a Jewish ceremony and neither of them would have wanted an Anglican ceremony. And yet they had an Anglican ceremony two years later! But you would have thought that following the 1836 Marriage Act referenced in an earlier post of yours that an RC marriage would have been possible by the date of the 2nd marriage and that would have been Deborah Regan's first choice I would have thought.

I wonder if this is another of those cases where the first marriage was technically illegal because one of the parties was already married to someone else. The groom was 34 at the time of the first marriage. He might well have had a previous wife still living.Possible though I don't have any evidence of that.

Another issue is the bride's . She was only about 18 when her first child was born. The age of majority then was 21 so she would have needed parental consent to marry before the birth of that child. This may be why she didn't marry until 1858 when she didn't need parental consent.That is a convincing explanation Lorna I was unaware of that consent issue

One interesting point is that they had the same two witnesses at both marriage ceremonies. So the witnesses were complicit in something. Either they knew the first marriage was illegal or they knew the second one was (because you can't marry the same person twice unless there has been a divorce in between).Yes I did wonder how easy it was in the mid C19 to manage the subterfuge of getting married twice.

Lorna many thanks for the insight you have provided. It has given me and my extended family food for thought!

[LornaCraig]

...But you would have thought that following the 1836 Marriage Act referenced in an earlier post of yours that an RC marriage would have been possible by the date of the 2nd marriage and that would have been Deborah Regan's first choice...

Even if the Roman Catholic church had been registered for the conduct of weddings there still had to be a Registrar present. Maybe they didn't want to risk getting the same registrar as the one who married them at the Register Office two years earlier in case he remembered them!

[jamespam]

Lorna you suggested getting Louis Lowinsky's Birth Cert to see how the parents appear. I have found the certificate.
The plot thickens. On the Certificate Deborah's sister Ellen appears as the mothe.r
I have an 1861 census showing Ellen staying with Deborah in London. Ellen's age at the census date would suggest that she would have been 10 years of age at the time of Louis's birth in 1854.
My hunch is that Deborah disguised the mothers name by putting her sisters name on the certificate rather than her own. As you can see the fathers name is left blank.

[LornaCraig]

Yes, that looks like a simple attempt at disguising the mother's identity. She may even have been pretending to be illiterate because she registered the birth with an 'X' mark instead of signing her name, although she seems to have signed both her marriage records.

Although the father is not named there is a heavy hint, because the child was registered with 'Lowinski' (although it looks like 'Levinski') as his third forename, and that would have been an unusual name in London at the time.