Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Research Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 20-07-11, 11:20
Sussex Maid Sussex Maid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 139
Default Married twice??

There are two marriages on the Yorkshire parish records for St John the Baptist -
28 Oct 1819 and 13 Dec 1821
both for
John Rayner (mistranscribed Rauner 1819) of Halifax and
Rachel Milne of Halifax.
Both have the bride's uncle, Richard Sugden, as a witness.
The curate is the same person.
and the signatures of the bride and groom appear to be the same.

Have I missed something blindingly obvious or did these two get married twice??
Any thoughts welcome
thank you
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 20-07-11, 12:15
Uncle John's Avatar
Uncle John Uncle John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
Default

Any idea about ages, from later records? Perhaps one of them was under-age first time.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 20-07-11, 12:38
Sussex Maid Sussex Maid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 139
Default

Rachel was born Feb 1799, I haven't got any further info in John apart from 1841 census when he says he is 40 (I realise that could be flexible.)
Both of the marriages were by licence, so I suppose a 'fib' could have been told.
What age would have been considered 'under-age' in 1819 please?
regards
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 20-07-11, 12:50
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sussex Maid View Post
What age would have been considered 'under-age' in 1819 please?
regards
Under 21.
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20-07-11, 13:06
Sussex Maid Sussex Maid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 139
Default

KiteRunner
Thank you, so Rachel would have been 20yrs 8mths at the first marriage - will have to do some work on John and try to find his birth/baptism.
Will also try and get a copy of the later licence to see if anything is mentioned on there.
regards
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20-07-11, 16:48
Olde Crone Olde Crone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,860
Default

One person being underage would not invalidate the marriage, unless they were under the LEGAL age for marriage, which was 12 years for a female at that time.

The usual reason for marrying the same person twice is that the husband was in the military and did not have permission to marry the first time.

OC
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 20-07-11, 21:22
Sussex Maid Sussex Maid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 139
Default

OC
Thank you for that information. I have been in contact with Halifax RO and Borthwick Institute, they are checking it out for me.
John Rayner, the husband, is described as 'Linen Draper' in 1819 and 'Mercer' in 1821, so no obvious military occupation.
Have been checking this couple out a bit more and they
married 28 Oct 1819 - Rachel 'spinster' - curate James Knight
baby born/bap 23 Dec 1819/20 Mar 1820 - John and Rachel Rayner, Draper, curate J Knight
baby born/bap 15 Oct 1821/15 Nov 1821 - John and Rachel Rayner, Linen Draper, curate J Knight
married 13 Dec 1821 - John 'bachelor', Rachel 'spinster', curate James Knight
So not too sure whether first marriage would have been declared null and void which is why they were shown as bachelor and spinster second time around and there are no comments in the register on any of the above events.
Still, this makes a change from the couples in my tree who didn't find the time to get to the altar once...
regards
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 21-07-11, 08:07
Olde Crone Olde Crone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,860
Default

Sussex Maid

The reasons for declaring a marriage null and void would prevent the same couple from immediately marrying again!

It's very odd. All I can think of is that the first marriage was bigamous but you would have thought the clergy would have made a note of disapproval in the margin if nothing else!

OC
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:12.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.