1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  3. Both the main LostCousins site and this forum have been upgraded to that you can log-in securely. If you are not automatically taken to the secure site simply add https:// at the beginning of the URL.
  4. Guest - have you tested your DNA with Ancestry? Do you have English ancestors, and do you know which counties most of them came from? If so please complete my survey
  5. Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join please register NOW!

Why Were They Married Twice?

Discussion in 'General Genealogical Queries' started by GrahamC, Mar 17, 2018.

  1. GrahamC

    GrahamC LostCousins Member

    Emily Agnes Candy and Fred Phippen appear to have been married twice, 5 months apart in 1878. Once was in HIS parish and once was in HERS. There is only one entry in the GRO Index. This shows them marrying in the first quarter of 1878. Ancestry throws up one record on 29 Jan 1878 in Somerset, England, Marriage Registers, Bonds and Allegations, 1754-1914 and another on 27 May in the same year in England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973. Other sites appear to have one or the other but not both. Does anyone know why this might be?
     
  2. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    Having looked at the registers, I think the 27th May entry probably comes from a misreading of the Nunney Banns register. The final reading of the Banns was on 27 January, with January abbreviated to Jany, and I think it has been mistranscribed as 27 May. As far as I could see there was just the one marriage.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2018
  3. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    I've been sent an example today of a couple who were married twice on the same day in 1838 in different churches in the same London parish. The witnesses are different and in one entry the bride is a spinster, whilst in the other she's a widow (with a different surname, but the same father). The marriage also appears twice in the GRO indexes.
     
  4. GrahamC

    GrahamC LostCousins Member

    One thought I had was that possibly the bride's mum was upset that they married in Fred's home town so insisted that they do it again for her benefit.
     
  5. Heather

    Heather LostCousins Member

    Hi Graham, I wondered if you have these details taken from FMP Somerset Marriage index .......

    Spouse's birth year 1851
    Record set Somerset Marriage Index
    First name(s) Emily Agnes
    Sex Female
    Last name Candy
    Marriage year 1878
    Birth year 1856
    Spouse's first name(s) Frederick
    Spouse's last name Phippen
    Parish Kilmersdon
    Denomination Anglican
    County Somerset
    Country England
    Document type Parish records
    Page 149
    Age 22
    Marital status spinster
    Residence Kilmersdon
    Marriage date 29 Jan 1878
    Spouse's age 27
    Spouse's marital status bachelor
    Spouse's residence Nunney
    Spouse's occupation Farmer
    Father's name Edmund Candy
    Father's occupation Farmer
    Spouse's father's name James Phippen
    Spouse's father's occupation Farmer
    By licence or by banns Banns
    First witness R B Baby
    Second witness E J Baby
    Archive Somerset Archives
    Archive reference D/P/ KILM 2/1/10
    Record type Marriages
    Record's year range 1837-1901
    Category Life Events (BDMs)
    Subcategory Parish Marriages
    Collections from England, United Kingdom
     
  6. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    However, this couple married in Kilmersdon which according to the marriage and banns registers was the bride's home parish. Frederick was from Nunney.
     
  7. Pauline

    Pauline LostCousins Star

    While there seems little doubt that some people did marry the same person twice, some apparent incidences of this are due to the marriage being recorded in more than one register. After 1837, it should be apparent from the original registers if one entry is simply a duplicate record, and there should be only one entry in the GRO indexes, but it may appear from other transcripts and indexes that the marriage took place twice.

    Also, it isn't always obvious at FamilySearch (with these records also being available via FMP and Ancestry) if a marriage record has been transcribed from the actual marriage, or from the banns entry or licence. Factor in any transcription errors (as with the marriage mentioned above) and confusion easily arises.

    I do have an example from 1863 where it seems the couple married twice, in September and November, and the marriage appears twice in the GRO indexes. In this case there was an issue with the bride's surname (she was illegitimate) and the latter ceremony seems to have happened to make a legal correction of the record in front of the registrar.
     
  8. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    Usually this happens when the marriage took place in chapelry and the marriage is indexed as if it took place both in the chapel and the parish church. Indeed, as both of the marriages I examined were in the same parish my first thought was that it was a clerical error (in both senses).

    But since the witnesses were different there clearly were two ceremonies - but one can only surmise which took place first and why the marital state of the bride was shown as widow when her father was present and spinster when he (apparently) wasn't. I haven't, so far, found an earlier marriage but I have only looked in London.

    It's largely of academic interest since they're not related to the member who sent them in. upload_2018-3-18_11-46-35.png upload_2018-3-18_11-47-20.png
     
  9. NicolaP

    NicolaP LostCousins Member

    I've an example of the same couple marrying twice just under a month apart.

    Newington St Mary 4 Jul 1808
    William Shayle and Elizabeth Coombs

    St Giles in the Fields 1 Aug 1808
    William Shayle and Elizabeth Coombs

    Both state William was widowed and Elizabeth a spinster. Both state they resided in the parish they married in and married by banns.

    I appreciate that the St Giles in the Fields is probably from the BTs as the original registers weren't deposited at the LMA when the imaging was done by Ancestry (both marriages are viewable on Ancestry) but there are different witnesses on both. Haven't seen the original for St Giles to confirm the same signatures but As William Shayle is not a common name it has to be the same couple. It was Elizabeth's first of four marriages, although with the other three husbands she only had a single ceremony for each!
     
  10. Fern49

    Fern49 LostCousins Star

    Makes interesting reading. In my searching I have come across a duplicate marriage. Makes you realise all was not as it seemed.:)
     
  11. GrahamC

    GrahamC LostCousins Member

    I discovered this some years ago. I have a Margaret Strange Kenny who married William Cook on 20 Feb 1872 and during 3rd qtr 1879 married Edward Vincent Thomas in the Norwich Register Office. I ordered both certificates (can't lay my hands on them right now) and satisfied myself it was the same Margaret. So what was going on? Was she a bigamist? I eventually found she was divorced by her first husband in 1878. She apparently reverted to her maiden name and single status after the divorce and this is what threw me. Does anyone know if this was the usual situation in the case of divorce?
     
  12. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    Is it possible that the marriage was annulled, rather than the couple divorcing? This would almost certainly be the case if they were Roman Catholic.
     
  13. GrahamC

    GrahamC LostCousins Member

    No! The divorce papers are now on Ancestry but I originally found them on The National Archives web site.
     
  14. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    But were they Roman Catholic? Kenny sounds like an Irish surname to me, and if the marriage was annulled by the Pope then it is as if the marriage never took place. Remember that despite the well-known aide memoire Henry VIII didn't actually divorce Catherine of Aragon: he first applied to the Pope asking him to annul the marriage, then - when he refused - engineered a split from Rome and got his annulment from Thomas Cranmer, who he had appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury.
     
  15. GrahamC

    GrahamC LostCousins Member

    They were not RC. Margaret's first marriage was C of E as was the entire family at that stage.
     

Share This Page