Hello list, If a marriage took place in Staffordshire ( I'm looking particularly at Waterfall) in the mid 18th Century was there an absolute requirement to note whether the parties were ever married previously? If they were not recorded as "widow" or "widower" can you be confident that this was a first marriage? I have an Ellen Street married at Waterfall to John Bould in 1763 and I have a William Street buried in Waterfall in 1761 leaving a widow called Ellen Street. Her later recorded burial would have made her 33 years old at the time of her marriage to John Bould. If she was a spinster at her wedding then I need to look elsewhere for Ellen Street. Helen

<<snipped>> If a marriage took place in Staffordshire ( I'm looking particularly at Waterfall) in the mid 18th Century was there an absolute requirement to note whether the parties were ever married previously? <<snipped>> My gut feeling is no, there was not an absolute requirement. My 3G GF married his second wife in Bristol in 1828. Actually, he married her twice, but nothing he does surprises me. On the first occasion, she is described as a Spinster and he as a Widower. On the second occasion there is nothing about the previous marital condition of either. So - if it says Spinster or Bachelor, then we can take it as true. If it doesn't say anything, then I DON'T believe we can assume them to be Spinster or Bachelor. Adrian B

Adrian Said So - if it says Spinster or Bachelor, then we can take it as true. If it doesn't say anything, then I DON'T believe we can assume them to be Spinster or Bachelor. I totally disagree with this. I have seen people listed as spinster or bachelor and have been previously married. Condition at marriage is at the end of the day whatever you want to tell them. The only part of a marriage cert that can be taken as true are the names of those marrying and the vicars name Rob