Anyone good at solving puzzles?

[belinda]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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?

[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.

[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 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!

[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