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

On 7/9/2013 8:55 AM, Tony Proctor wrote: > 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 > > I had a similar situation. X is living with Y and Girl 1 and Boy 1 in the 1860 census. In 1870 X is living with Z and Boy 2 and Boy 3. I learned that Girl 1 had died in 1861. For years I assumed that Y and Boy 1 had died in the Civil War or between 1861 and 1865, slightly before Z would have become pregnant with Boy 2. After years of researching this senario I found that Z had married in the late 1870's (Y and Z both died in the early 1870's) I am now working to get copies of their divorice papers from 1867. It now looks like Y threw X out aftet he got Y pregnant. One of those case where we in the 21st Century do not make judgements of the actions of our ancestors.