A bachelor at his second marriage?

Newstreet

I have a 2nd great grand uncle, for whom two marriages appear, in 1880 and again in 1897. However, all the evidence points to a third, earlier marriage. the children from the first disputed marriage run almost exactly consecutively with the children from the later two verified marriages, and the first couple appear as sponsors in other family marriages.

The problem is, in the second marriage (the first documented marriage), he is listed as a bachelor. No record at all appears for the first (undocumented) marriage, either in the registers or the church records. The only record is a series of baptisms for their children.

My question is, would it be possible for him to be mentioned as a bachelor on his second marriage, in error? Or would it be more possible he had six or seven children with the first woman, and never married her at all, in Dublin in the 1870s? There are too many coincidences for it to be another man of the same name.

pinkypinky

Are you sure it couldn't be an uncle who was close in age to his same name nephew?

Peregrinus

Yes, it was possible to "shack up" and have a family in Dublin in the 1870s without marrying. Social convention strongly disapproved, but it could happen and sometimes did. It could be that the lady was married to someone else, and therefore wasn't free to marry your uncle. Or, there was some objection in his family or hers to the union, and living together was seen as less awful than actually marrying. Or, if you're already on the margins of society, socially and economically, you have little to lose by flouting convention in this way. (Don't know if this would be your relative's situation, obviously.)

KildareFan

Not an unusual situation despite our parents claiming they and all before them led lives of puritanical sanctity. Check the birth certs for the first lot of children - usually if the parents claim to be married the mothers name is given in the form "Joan Soap formerly Showergel". If they weren't married, the mother's name is given as Joan Showergel - that's if they were being honest.

I do have a great uncle born in 1875 whose mother's name was recorded as X formerly Y.... but their marriage certificate shows they actually married two years later, in 1877.

tabbey

There was a lot of couples living together, as a second relationship. The penalties for bigamy were very severe, and it was much more prudent to live as man and wife, and say nothing.
In spite of that, there was still a lot of bigamy, probably one party did not want to admit he/she was already married to another person.

Mollymoo19

Newstreet wrote: »

My question is, would it be possible for him to be mentioned as a bachelor on his second marriage, in error?

My ancestor married young in 1860, two weeks after being named as the father of a baby girl. They then had another four children together, before his wife died in 1865. I don’t know yet how long the children survived. In 1867, he married my second-great-grandmother, where he was named as a bachelor. Definitely the same man. Error?

tabbey

Mollymoo19 wrote: »

My ancestor married young in 1860, two weeks after being named as the father of a baby girl. They then had another four children together, before his wife died in 1865. I don’t know yet how long the children survived. In 1867, he married my second-great-grandmother, where he was named as a bachelor. Definitely the same man. Error?

I have one man who was initially recorded as a bachelor, a line was put through bachelor, and substituted with widower.

I am sure there were thousands who are shown as bachelor instead of widower. It is almost automatic to write bachelor unless the priest is reminded that the man was a widower.
In the case of women, it was less likely, as they would have mentioned two surnames usually, but I am sure a few also had the wrong status registered.

Newstreet

That's exactly my question.

There are too many coincidences for it to be two different men of the same name, but, as with so much of my family tree, there never seems to be that one document that verifies things. The crucial marriage, or baptism, or death, is ALWAYS missing!

Still, it is helpful to know that a widower might be married as a bachelor in error, that is one solution.

srmf5

Have you tried looking for a death record for the first wife? You could try her maiden name and check who registered the death as well as married name. If it was before the second marriage, it's probably the same man. It's a simple mistake to record someone as a bachelor instead of a widower, especially in those times when he may have been illiterate. I know that my great grandfather was recorded as a widower when he died even though his wife was still alive. That was only back in 1944. It was later amended but I'd imagine that there are many instances where it was never corrected. As far as I remember I have come across similar mistakes in other records.