"Tony Proctor" <tony@proctor_NoMore_SPAM.net> wrote in message news:krgvvu$f42$1@reader01.news.esat.net... >I have encountered an unusual item of evidence and wanted to ask how other >people would interpret it. > > My ancestor William Elliott (b. c1841 Uttoxeter) married a Sarah Woods (b. > 1859 Kensington) in Burton-on-Trent on 9/10/1881. I found that William was > previously married to a Sarah Elizabeth Wildgoose (b. c1841 Darley Dale). > I assumed that she had died, even though I could find no death record, but > something was troubling me: In the 1881 census William was lodging with > his second "wife", and their son William who was born in the January. > However, William didn't marry Sarah Woods until the October which is quite > a long time after their son's birth. > > I'd seen this pattern before, though, and started working on the theory > that he and his first wife had separated, and that he was waiting for > 7-years of complete separation (as provided for in the Offences Against > the Person Act 1861, section.57) to pass. If true then he separated from > Sarah Wildgoose around October 1874, and his move from Derbyshire to > Staffordshire may have been part of the plan. > > There was a Sarah Wildgoose of the right age, also from Darley Dale, who > married a Joseph Woodhouse in Bakewell district (Matlock parish) on > 20/4/1874. I could see that they had a child in the September so she was > already pregnant when they married. If it was the same Sarah Wildgoose > then she may have ignored the 7-year provision and got married as quickly > as possible. Joseph may have even been the cause of the split from William > Elliott. This Sarah never used any middlename but that could have been a > vague attempt to obfuscate the connection. Unfortunately, that child later > died as an infant. > > Everything seemed to fit together in the theory but I needed some evidence > that clinched it. I applied for a copy of this marriage to Joseph > Woodhouse and was rather surprised to find all the bride's-father fields > crossed out, with nothing recorded. Could it be that this was a different > Sarah who simply didn't know her father, or that the marriage was really > bigamous and she wanted muddy the trail? > > Tony Proctor > Just for the record, in case anyone is searching on Wildgoose, there were two Sarah Wildgoose births in Darley Dale c1842: a) Sarah Elizabeth Wildgoose, b. c1842 to Charles Wildgoose (b. c1797) and Elizabeth Greatorex (b. c1802) who were married on 28/8/1820 at Wirksworth, Derbys. Sarah was christened 5/6/1842. b) Sarah Wildgoose, b. c1843 to Dorothy Wildgoose, nee Allwood. No father given. Dorothy was married for a short time to George Wildgoose but it is doubtful he was Sarah's father. Sarah was christened 5/2/1843. Hence, the marriage certificate showing no father was that for Sarah-b, whereas I'm looking for Sarah-a after 1871. Still no luck there. Tony Proctor