Why Were They Married Twice?

[GrahamC]

Emily Agnes Candy and Fred Phippen appear to have been married twice, 5 months apart in 1878. Once was in HIS parish and once was in HERS. There is only one entry in the GRO Index. This shows them marrying in the first quarter of 1878. Ancestry throws up one record on 29 Jan 1878 in Somerset, England, Marriage Registers, Bonds and Allegations, 1754-1914 and another on 27 May in the same year in England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973. Other sites appear to have one or the other but not both. Does anyone know why this might be?

 

[Pauline]

Having looked at the registers, I think the 27th May entry probably comes from a misreading of the Nunney Banns register. The final reading of the Banns was on 27 January, with January abbreviated to Jany, and I think it has been mistranscribed as 27 May. As far as I could see there was just the one marriage.

 

[peter]

I've been sent an example today of a couple who were married twice on the same day in 1838 in different churches in the same London parish. The witnesses are different and in one entry the bride is a spinster, whilst in the other she's a widow (with a different surname, but the same father). The marriage also appears twice in the GRO indexes.

 

[GrahamC]

One thought I had was that possibly the bride's mum was upset that they married in Fred's home town so insisted that they do it again for her benefit.

 

[Heather]

Hi Graham, I wondered if you have these details taken from FMP Somerset Marriage index .......

Spouse's birth year 1851
Record set Somerset Marriage Index
First name(s) Emily Agnes
Sex Female
Last name Candy
Marriage year 1878
Birth year 1856
Spouse's first name(s) Frederick
Spouse's last name Phippen
Parish Kilmersdon
Denomination Anglican
County Somerset
Country England
Document type Parish records
Page 149
Age 22
Marital status spinster
Residence Kilmersdon
Marriage date 29 Jan 1878
Spouse's age 27
Spouse's marital status bachelor
Spouse's residence Nunney
Spouse's occupation Farmer
Father's name Edmund Candy
Father's occupation Farmer
Spouse's father's name James Phippen
Spouse's father's occupation Farmer
By licence or by banns Banns
First witness R B Baby
Second witness E J Baby
Archive Somerset Archives
Archive reference D/P/ KILM 2/1/10
Record type Marriages
Record's year range 1837-1901
Category Life Events (BDMs)
Subcategory Parish Marriages
Collections from England, United Kingdom

 

[Pauline]

One thought I had was that possibly the bride's mum was upset that they married in Fred's home town so insisted that they do it again for her benefit.

However, this couple married in Kilmersdon which according to the marriage and banns registers was the bride's home parish. Frederick was from Nunney.

 

[Pauline]

I've been sent an example today of a couple who were married twice on the same day in 1838 in different churches in the same London parish.

While there seems little doubt that some people did marry the same person twice, some apparent incidences of this are due to the marriage being recorded in more than one register. After 1837, it should be apparent from the original registers if one entry is simply a duplicate record, and there should be only one entry in the GRO indexes, but it may appear from other transcripts and indexes that the marriage took place twice.

Also, it isn't always obvious at FamilySearch (with these records also being available via FMP and Ancestry) if a marriage record has been transcribed from the actual marriage, or from the banns entry or licence. Factor in any transcription errors (as with the marriage mentioned above) and confusion easily arises.

I do have an example from 1863 where it seems the couple married twice, in September and November, and the marriage appears twice in the GRO indexes. In this case there was an issue with the bride's surname (she was illegitimate) and the latter ceremony seems to have happened to make a legal correction of the record in front of the registrar.

 

[peter]

some apparent incidences of this are due to the marriage being recorded in more than one register

Usually this happens when the marriage took place in chapelry and the marriage is indexed as if it took place both in the chapel and the parish church. Indeed, as both of the marriages I examined were in the same parish my first thought was that it was a clerical error (in both senses).

But since the witnesses were different there clearly were two ceremonies - but one can only surmise which took place first and why the marital state of the bride was shown as widow when her father was present and spinster when he (apparently) wasn't. I haven't, so far, found an earlier marriage but I have only looked in London.

It's largely of academic interest since they're not related to the member who sent them in.

 

[NicolaP]

I've an example of the same couple marrying twice just under a month apart.

Newington St Mary 4 Jul 1808
William Shayle and Elizabeth Coombs

St Giles in the Fields 1 Aug 1808
William Shayle and Elizabeth Coombs

Both state William was widowed and Elizabeth a spinster. Both state they resided in the parish they married in and married by banns.

I appreciate that the St Giles in the Fields is probably from the BTs as the original registers weren't deposited at the LMA when the imaging was done by Ancestry (both marriages are viewable on Ancestry) but there are different witnesses on both. Haven't seen the original for St Giles to confirm the same signatures but As William Shayle is not a common name it has to be the same couple. It was Elizabeth's first of four marriages, although with the other three husbands she only had a single ceremony for each!

 

[Fern49]

Makes interesting reading. In my searching I have come across a duplicate marriage. Makes you realise all was not as it seemed.

 

[GrahamC]

I discovered this some years ago. I have a Margaret Strange Kenny who married William Cook on 20 Feb 1872 and during 3rd qtr 1879 married Edward Vincent Thomas in the Norwich Register Office. I ordered both certificates (can't lay my hands on them right now) and satisfied myself it was the same Margaret. So what was going on? Was she a bigamist? I eventually found she was divorced by her first husband in 1878. She apparently reverted to her maiden name and single status after the divorce and this is what threw me. Does anyone know if this was the usual situation in the case of divorce?

 

[peter]

I discovered this some years ago. I have a Margaret Strange Kenny who married William Cook on 20 Feb 1872 and during 3rd qtr 1879 married Edward Vincent Thomas in the Norwich Register Office. I ordered both certificates (can't lay my hands on them right now) and satisfied myself it was the same Margaret. So what was going on? Was she a bigamist? I eventually found she was divorced by her first husband in 1878. She apparently reverted to her maiden name and single status after the divorce and this is what threw me. Does anyone know if this was the usual situation in the case of divorce?

Is it possible that the marriage was annulled, rather than the couple divorcing? This would almost certainly be the case if they were Roman Catholic.

 

[GrahamC]

Is it possible that the marriage was annulled, rather than the couple divorcing? This would almost certainly be the case if they were Roman Catholic.

No! The divorce papers are now on Ancestry but I originally found them on The National Archives web site.

 

[peter]

No! The divorce papers are now on Ancestry but I originally found them on The National Archives web site.

But were they Roman Catholic? Kenny sounds like an Irish surname to me, and if the marriage was annulled by the Pope then it is as if the marriage never took place. Remember that despite the well-known aide memoire Henry VIII didn't actually divorce Catherine of Aragon: he first applied to the Pope asking him to annul the marriage, then - when he refused - engineered a split from Rome and got his annulment from Thomas Cranmer, who he had appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[GrahamC]

They were not RC. Margaret's first marriage was C of E as was the entire family at that stage.