Anyone good at solving puzzles?

[Steven Russell]

Debra A

Dear Debra,
I've just read through the thread again and realise that my solution is almost identical to yours, which was posted earlier. Please accept my apologies. My only defence is that I did reach my conclusion independently. I hope it is true and, if so, I salute you for having got there earlier.

Best wishes,

Steve.

[Debra A]

Dear Debra,
I've just read through the thread again and realise that my solution is almost identical to yours, which was posted earlier. Please accept my apologies. My only defence is that I did reach my conclusion independently. I hope it is true and, if so, I salute you for having got there earlier.

Best wishes,

Steve.

No worries Steve...great minds and all that jazz, and even though I think Chris and Coral are probably somewhere nearer the mark with this, I do prefer our more colourful version of events.

[m_w_r]

Hi Bob,

I'm not sure to what extent this fits in with your evidence, but, as a suggestion:

The male party's first divorce was granted in decree nisi on 23 April 1909. But this is only the first step towards divorce, the second and final step being a decree absolute. In the meantime, the King's Proctor had the opportunity to prove - for example - collusion between the divorcing parties, which would cause the divorce to be set aside. There was no such thing as a consensual divorce until relatively recently.

So, hypothetically, the King's Proctor proved this, and the divorce was set aside. When the still-married male party "married" again in 1912, this second "marriage" was illegitimate, and eventually (say, after 1915) proved so. But by this time the first marriage could be dissolved at the first wife's request, on account of desertion and presumed adultery (with the second wife). So the first marriage was dissolved. This permitted the male party to marry his second wife legally in 1923. Complicated, but plausible under the law, I think. Of course, the second marriage was to end in divorce too, in 1928.

If you are interested in evidence of the involvement of the King's Proctor, then you should look in file TS 29 at the National Archives, volume 5 or after. There might not be any - I'm reading a lot into the evidence you've provided - but I would suggest that it would be worth browsing just in case.

Regards,

Mark

[belinda]

I'd go with the first marriage not being legal for some reason

[Bob Hinton]

It works up to a point...

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

Fine, but why did the woman change her name to her original maiden name, and why did she say she was a widow when her 'husband' was the one she was marrying?

[Chris]

... why did she say she was a widow when her 'husband' was the one she was marrying?

Presumably - on this hypothesis - because the vicar would have refused to "marry" them if he had known they were already married.

[caz]

Could bigamy explain it? What if her first husband (Mr Martin) wasn't really dead when she and Mr Clark went through their first marriage ceremony? Later Mr Martin dies and she becomes a genuine widow, and the couple want to do it right this time, so she reverts to Bond so the name Martin won't appear on the second certificate and their guilty secret will be safe.

Does that work?

Love,

Caz
X

[Bob Hinton]

Almost, but

Could bigamy explain it? What if her first husband (Mr Martin) wasn't really dead when she and Mr Clark went through their first marriage ceremony? Later Mr Martin dies and she becomes a genuine widow, and the couple want to do it right this time, so she reverts to Bond so the name Martin won't appear on the second certificate and their guilty secret will be safe.

Does that work?

Love,

Caz
X

It doesn't explain why the husband now describes himmself as a widower when originally he was described as a divorcee.

I hope no one thinks this is just an interesting puzzle and I'm going to pop up and amaze you all with the answer. I've got absolutely no idea what is going on!

[Chris]

Bob

I think you've got to allow for the possibility that the information given by the parties in 1923 was not accurate.

[Dark Ali]

Perhaps he would have had to have proof of divorce Bob.

[Steven Russell]

All of this makes me wonder what sort of documentary evidence would have been required for a marriage to take place in the Victorian era. Bob, I know your case begins in 1912 so please forgive me for going off thread a bit. How easy was it to get married in the LVP if you were illiterate and had no documentation?

If it was easy then that would mean that the authorities were prepared to believe what they were told by the parties in question. If it was difficult, that could help explain why there are so many couples in the JTR saga who live together as man and wife without having gone through an official ceremony, the woman assuming the man's surname.

I would be interested to hear any thoughts on this.

Best wishes,

Steve.

[caz]

It doesn't explain why the husband now describes himmself as a widower when originally he was described as a divorcee.

Well that one's easy, if the couple were pretending their second marriage ceremony (non-bigamous) was their one and only ceremony, and his former wife had kicked the bucket in between, now making him widowed rather than divorced. It's like they were trying to wipe out that first ceremony for some reason.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

A widow named Bond? Shurely shum mishtake

I'll try and explain my thinking a bit more clearly.

Mrs Martin and George Clark, a divorced man, fancy the pants off each other, but she can't get a divorce from Mr Martin so she leaves him and the lovers rashly go through an illegal marriage ceremony, claiming that her first husband is pushing up the daisies.

Later, when Mr Martin dies for real and George's former wife has also shuffled off, "Mr and Mrs" Clark decide they'd quite like to sleep at night by marrying each other as if for the first time and becoming Mr and Mrs Clark legally. If she and George hadn't gone through that previous ceremony together, they would now be widow and widower respectively, as per the second certificate.

But in case anyone connects the second certificate with the first, via the name Martin, she decides to use her maiden name instead - which should have provided a clue that something was not quite right. Maybe that was considered less risky than pretending to be a spinster of the parish named Bond.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Steve,

I wonder if many of the poorer couples in the LVP lived together to save the cost of the marriage licence.

The stigma associated with "living in sin" tended to bother people in the middle of society much more than at either extreme.

Love,

Caz
X

[Steven Russell]

Hi Steve,

I wonder if many of the poorer couples in the LVP lived together to save the cost of the marriage licence.

The stigma associated with "living in sin" tended to bother people in the middle of society much more than at either extreme.

Love,

Caz
X

Good point, Caz. Was a marriage licence expensive?

Best wishes,

Steve.

P.S. I wonder if the different religions had different rules / attitudes to "living in sin".