Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Bigamy or Devorce??
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Rachel | Report | 2 Mar 2005 15:39 |
|
on the 1881 census Emma was with Edward but their daughter Kathleen was with Edward's Parents - I'd over looked her initially as an illigitamate neice but later found a record of her being the daughter to Edward and Emma. FreeBMD has 114 deaths for Emma King between 1881 and 1889 but I'll keep looking at them. I'm just trying to eliminate other posabilities in the mean time. |
|||
|
Poolie Girl | Report | 2 Mar 2005 15:14 |
|
Where is the daughter on 1881? I could find only three Emma King deaths in Wandsworth for the 1880s so why don't you try the registrar with the details you have to see if any match? |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 2 Mar 2005 14:56 |
|
Divorce was very rare - there was a thread here the other day with actual stats ...... there you go ... Divorce in the 1800s The total number of divorces which had EVER been granted in England was 330 in the year 1858. Thats even less than I had imagined. Marjorie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added by Brenda Hawkins on 27/02/2005 23:02:44 Well, wouldn't each one have had to have been by an Act of Parliament at that stage? I agree, though, that nobody has ever put it quite so starkly as that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Added by Marjorie Peek on 27/02/2005 23:26:24 Brenda Yes, of course, but it is still a minute amount isn't it, and therefore divorce is hardly worth considering when looking for a vanished relative before this time. I was very surprised at this, I did realise that' Not Many People' got divorced, but if I had had to guess at a number it would probably have been thousands, rather than hundreds. Marjorie |
|||
|
Rachel | Report | 2 Mar 2005 14:50 |
|
Emma King appears so frequently on the BMI index between 1881 and 1889, I don't have much hope of finding the right record if she died. I also have 'lost here daughter after 1881 census. |
|||
|
Poolie Girl | Report | 2 Mar 2005 14:47 |
|
Have you checked that Emma didn't die? What area did all this take place? Beth :) |
|||
|
Rachel | Report | 2 Mar 2005 14:40 |
|
I have just received 2 marriage certificates for the same ancestor and both claim his marrital candition as bachulor. The first certificate is dated 1871 and by banns and the second 1889 in a registary office. I know that he had a daughter by the first wife and had a number of children with the second (my line). What is the likleyhood that he was a bigamist and that he devorced? His name was Edward Huntley King and was married to Emma Alexander firstly and then Bertha Tournay. I know that the National Archives have some devorces online but I cant access them. (The spelling is my fault but I'm also dyslexic so have trouble so also my appologies for bad spelling mistakes) |
|||