Genealogy Chat

So now we know why you were loking at the papers, Paul??!?? Merry

I've come to the conclusion that the 'Victorian values' we hear so much about were a myth created in the 1950s by old people who disapproved of the changes in society at that time. I have spent a lot of time trawling through Victorian newspapers in my own family quest and have frequently been distracted by fascinating articles that utterly dispel this myth. Matters of a sexual nature were discussed openly in these pages and many of the articles were written in a way that shows that the readers fully understood what was going on in the world. South London newspapers of the 1890's for instance carried front page advertisements promoting treatments for erectile disfunction, and all sorts of marital problems were given wide exposure even in the 1840's. I have also read of many court cases in which judges have made very enlightened decisions and have shown mercy far removed from the bigotry we associate with the Victorian legal system.

Bigamy does seem to have been surprisingly common, considering that it was a criminal offence. My great-granny in Australia remarried twice while her first husband was alive (calling herself a widow on the marriage certificate), and he appears to have done the same. He married his last wife very late in life, and appears to have a living son, who I'd love to contact to find out more about the family. However, the first wife and children aren't mentioned on his death certificate (as they normally would be on an Australian death certificate), only the last wife and their child. The last wife may not even have known that she was getting married bigamously, so I daren't contact the son in case of causing a big family upset. Shame, because there can't be all that many people still alive with a father born in the 1860s.

It's quite funny when you think about it. Everyone today goes on about the rising divorce rate but it seems to me that in the old days they just went out and got a new wife (or husband) and that's why the divorce rate was so low! Only joking - I know it was very difficult.It's the same with illegitimacy - most of my ancestors had children before they married or very shortly afterwards and yet so many older people pretend it never happened.

Hi Mog - yes, it could well be that he was shunned by his family for his actions - but if they were that religious they probably would not have wanted a huge scandal breaking out and putting their good name to shame - so my guess is they kept quiet about it, as did his wife. Again, going back to my own example with my grt grandad - after marrying his much younger wife it appears that his whole family broke ties with him, only visiting to tell him when someone died! My grandad knew nothing of any of his uncles/aunts even though they all lived just a few miles from each other! Regards Athena

Perhaps his first wife knew, disapproved but couldnt face the scandal? Or perhaps she was so relieved to get rid she didnt care! Helen They ought to have had more consideration for future generations trying to trace their family trees though - its like trying to herd cats at times isnt it - you think you are all heading in the right direction then off they all disappear!

Good point Paul and Athena. I had wondered if they had come to an agreement BUT his family were very religious and I can't imagine them colluding with such a set-up. The first wife lived a couple of streets away from his family and they would have known her and seen her. He and his second wife lived a couple of miles away. Have just had a thought - perhaps he kept both of them on the go at the same time!! Mog

Hi Mog It could be that it was a mutual arrangement between the couple. In those days when divorce was not an easy thing to obtain (very costly) many couples who simply did not get along came to an arrangement whereby they lived apart and were free to get involved with another partner. Most probably she was aware of his second marriage but chose not to say anything to the authorities because she may not have cared what he was up to and may even have stayed on friendly terms with him. Bigamy wasn't that unusual in those times - and even lying about ages was a common thing too. My own grt grandad lied about his age when he married the second time (he chopped about 20 years off his age!).

I would imagine that bigamy was far more common in the days when obtaining a divorce was almost impossible. I should imagine too that a mutual arrangement between parties who both wished for a divorce could result in the situation you see here. I would bet that they both sat down together and discussed this amicably. The son was probably also aware of the truth but chose to declare his errant father dead rather than have him exposed as a bigamist.

Anything is possible. My maternal grandmother married twice in 1870-odd and 1893, both under her maiden name and both as a spinster. I can't find the death of her first husband. She had one child by her first husband in 1880, correctly registered and two by my great grandfather before they married, both registered with him as father and husband.

I guess so, Mog in the Fog.

That's a sad story Elaine but at least yours had the decency to change his name and it wasn't right under his first wife's nose!! Mog

Hi MOG IN A FOG, I have a similar story, concerning my gr grandfather, except that he didn't marry a 16 yr old the second time around. My gr grandmother, was always down as married as well, on the census's. For years, I was unable to find my gr grandfather, he seemed to vanish off the face of the earth. But only recently I have found him residing in the USA, supposedly married and on the census's there, under a different name. He left his first wife and 5 children behind. I now wonder, if my gr grandmother always thought he was going to return??

My g.grandfather first marries in 1870 to a woman with a very distinctive name and has a son. By the 1881 census,they are living apart, both stating that they are married. At that time, g.grandfather is lodging with a family, one of whom is a 9 year old girl. In 1888, still at the same address he marries this girl, by now of course 16, but states that he is a widower and knocks 11 years off his age. He continues to lie about his age in 1891 and 1901. In 1891 the first wife still has her married name and still states that she's married. When she dies in 1902, her certificate says that she is the widow of my g.grandfather, the informant being her son. My g.grandfather doesn't die until 1925, when his true age is shown. I have tried to come up with reasonable explanations such as each believed the other to be dead/ hushed up divorce/ remarriage/ or any combination of these. What puzzles me is that the first wife lived in very close proximity to his brothers and sisters and I know he was in contact with at least some of them Can't give names because living relatives don't know. I have all the certificates and he came from a very small village so it's unlikely that I have the wrong person anywhere here. So, was he a bigamist?? Mog