Anyone good at solving puzzles?

[Bob Hinton]

Ok folks. Here’s something to get your little grey cells hopping. It concerns two people George Clark and Beatrice Mary Martin (nee Bond). They married in 1912, here are the details:
George Clark, age 43, divorced, woollen merchant, father Alfred Clark deceased, Linen Merchant.
Beatrice Mary Martin, age 27, widow, no trade, father James Bond, merchant.

So far so good. But then in 1923 we have the following marriage:
George Clark, age 54, widower, woollen merchant, father Alfred Clark deceased, Linen Merchant.
Beatrice Mary Bond, age 37, widow, no trade, father James Bond, merchant.

Now there is very little doubt in my mind that these are the same people. So what the hell is going on?

Now I have changed the names for reasons of my own, however the details are accurate. I cannot figure out what circumstances can fit these facts. Can anyone?

[Chris]

Ok folks. Here’s something to get your little grey cells hopping. It concerns two people George Clark and Beatrice Mary Martin (nee Bond). They married in 1912, here are the details:
George Clark, age 43, divorced, woollen merchant, father Alfred Clark deceased, Linen Merchant.
Beatrice Mary Martin, age 27, widow, no trade, father James Bond, merchant.

So far so good. But then in 1923 we have the following marriage:
George Clark, age 54, widower, woollen merchant, father Alfred Clark deceased, Linen Merchant.
Beatrice Mary Bond, age 37, widow, no trade, father James Bond, merchant.

Now there is very little doubt in my mind that these are the same people. So what the hell is going on?

Now I have changed the names for reasons of my own, however the details are accurate. I cannot figure out what circumstances can fit these facts. Can anyone?

The only thought that occurs is that - if the second marriage took place in church - they might have wished to have a religious ceremony when the death of his previous wife meant that the man was a widower rather than a divorcé. It seems very irregular though.

[Rob Clack]

Could there have been a problem with the divorce? I'm not sure how it would be done, but could there be a problem with the divorce procedure, say a mistake was made and so he wasn't legally divorced? When the error was spotted his first wife was dead so he would be a widower on the second marriage.

Rob

[Debra A]

Isn't there also the question of why Beatrice Mary gives her surname as Martin in one entry (which makes sense if she is a widow) but then gives her maiden surname of Bond for the second entry?
Even after being widowed or divorced a woman cannot revert back to her maiden surname legally unless she does it by deed poll. Unless in between these dates she also married a man with the surname of Bond, who later died?

[tji]

Hi Bob

Could just be a simple error, I have seen lots of errors on census reports. I have some where it says sister in law and she was actually mother in law. I have also seen one were it states daughter in law and it should have been daughter.
They are just a few instances, maybe that is what has happened with yours, mistakes would be easy to make when you are writing reams of info by hand, I would imagine.

Tj

[Bob Hinton]

Good answers but,

Hi Bob

Could just be a simple error, I have seen lots of errors on census reports. I have some where it says sister in law and she was actually mother in law. I have also seen one were it states daughter in law and it should have been daughter.
They are just a few instances, maybe that is what has happened with yours, mistakes would be easy to make when you are writing reams of info by hand, I would imagine.

Tj

Not an error. This information comes from marriage certificates not census returns. I've corrected so many census returns I reckon they should be paying me.

The re-marriage on death of first wife won't work. Beatrice is labelled as a widow and since she is re-marrying her very alive husband she can't be a widow.

Good tries though, keep it up!

[Debra A]

Mybe between the date of the 1913 marriage and the 1923 marriage entry the couple divorced, both of them going on to marry other people, Beatrice marrying someone with the surname Bond (coincidentally her maiden name) and both of them hooking up and marrying again after the deaths of their parners?

[Bob Hinton]

Good one!

Mybe between the date of the 1913 marriage and the 1923 marriage entry the couple divorced, both of them going on to marry other people, Beatrice marrying someone with the surname Bond (coincidentally her maiden name) and both of them hooking up and marrying again after the deaths of their parners?

I must admit that is the only scenario, unlikely as it may be that would fit. Unfortunately there is no record of either of them divorcing each other, re-marrying or having their partners die.

I also have a First class cabin on the Aquitania with both of them in it in 1921. Interestingly enough the chap in the nearby cabin was Ernest Shackleton the Explorer.

[Chris]

The re-marriage on death of first wife won't work. Beatrice is labelled as a widow and since she is re-marrying her very alive husband she can't be a widow.

I think it would have to be assumed that the couple weren't telling the full truth at the time of their second marriage, but that they were effectively making believe that their first marriage hadn't taken place.

Otherwise you'd have to construct a more elaborate scheme along the lines of Debra's suggestion, involving multiple divorces, coincidental marriages to people with the same surname, and so on. Isn't it more likely that they just weren't telling the truth in 1923?

[tji]

Hi

Sorry, I have searched that many census's I just assume now that is what people are doing.

I] I've corrected so many census returns I reckon they should be paying me.[/I]




Yeah I know that feeling, I have seen some weird 'translations' from the researchers, and yet when you look at the original it is so obvious what it is saying.

tj

[Bob Hinton]

OK but.....

I think it would have to be assumed that the couple weren't telling the full truth at the time of their second marriage, but that they were effectively making believe that their first marriage hadn't taken place.

Otherwise you'd have to construct a more elaborate scheme along the lines of Debra's suggestion, involving multiple divorces, coincidental marriages to people with the same surname, and so on. Isn't it more likely that they just weren't telling the truth in 1923?

But if they decided to lie in 1923, why go through a marriage again?

[Debra A]

I must admit that is the only scenario, unlikely as it may be that would fit. Unfortunately there is no record of either of them divorcing each other, re-marrying or having their partners die.

Hmm.. that is a spanner in the works to that solution then.

I also have a First class cabin on the Aquitania with both of them in it in 1921. Interestingly enough the chap in the nearby cabin was Ernest Shackleton the Explorer

I could see them not being in a hurry to remarry again straight away but still enjoying getting re-acquainted and pretending to be married while enjoying a trip together in 1921... if you hadn't made the first point about no substantiating records for a divorce, subsequent marriages or death of partners for either of them.

...I think I give in.

[coral]

But if they decided to lie in 1923, why go through a marriage again?

Hi Bob

Were they both Church marriages?

If the 1st one was a civil marriage it could mean that they really wanted a Church one but their 'faith' did not recognise divorce and considered him to be still married.

Then George learns that he is a widower in 1923 & they decide to have the church wedding.

Coral

[Chris]

Were they both Church marriages?

If the 1st one was a civil marriage it could mean that they really wanted a Church one but their 'faith' did not recognise divorce and considered him to be still married.

Then George learns that he is a widower in 1923 & they decide to have the church wedding.

Thanks Coral. I thought I was going to have to try to explain it again.

[Steven Russell]

Ok folks. Here’s something to get your little grey cells hopping. It concerns two people George Clark and Beatrice Mary Martin (nee Bond). They married in 1912, here are the details:
George Clark, age 43, divorced, woollen merchant, father Alfred Clark deceased, Linen Merchant.
Beatrice Mary Martin, age 27, widow, no trade, father James Bond, merchant.

So far so good. But then in 1923 we have the following marriage:
George Clark, age 54, widower, woollen merchant, father Alfred Clark deceased, Linen Merchant.
Beatrice Mary Bond, age 37, widow, no trade, father James Bond, merchant.

Now there is very little doubt in my mind that these are the same people. So what the hell is going on?

Now I have changed the names for reasons of my own, however the details are accurate. I cannot figure out what circumstances can fit these facts. Can anyone?

Dear Bob,
How about this?

1912 - George Clark, divorced, marries Beatrice Mary Martin, widow.
Both are now married.

After a while, they divorce, meaning that both are free to marry again. They both do so (to different people) but tragically, both new spouses die making both George and Beatrice widowed. Beatrice reverts to her maiden name of Bond.

1923 - George and Beatrice, now widower and widow respectively, rekindle their relationship and marry for a second time. Bells ring out.

A bit convoluted but I think it works.

Best wishes,

Steve.