SOG-UK-L Archives

Archiver > SOG-UK > 2000-03 > 0951995925


From: "" <>
Subject: Re: [SOG] Deceased wife's sister
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:18:45 +0000


Wilfred Gathercole wrote:
>
> Hello Joan,
>
> Thank you for joining in. There was a will in the case of my
> g. grandfather, but it was all legal and above board - give or
> take the illegality of the marriage. The only odd thing about
> it was that, among a number of bequests in the hundreds, the
> second wife only received 10. The local son was to have the
> farm engine and the mill, but only when he had entered a bond
> to provide the widow an annuity of only £13 p.a. That son and
> the widow then proved the will in Nottingham - so nobody
> seems to have been asking any questions!
>
> As to Steve's great grandfather's marriage, perhaps the vicar
> recognised neither the religious standing nor the marriage vows
> of a devout non-conformist, let alone a Roman Catholic - who
> was also, of course, a non-conformist! But marital status in
> marriage records is not always to be trusted in any case.
> At her second marriage my 3g grandmother was still a spinster.
> Still, it all shows what you can get away with if you act as if
> there were no questions to be asked.
>
> We non-coms are an odd bunch anyway.
>
> Bill Gathercole, York
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joan Stephens <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 1:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [SOG] Deceased wife's sister
>
> > Hi Wilfred
> > I have an instance of a marriage to the deceased wife's sister in
> 1815 -
> > 1816. The second marriage was at St Martin Vintry in London. The
> first
> > marriage in London I have not found, but have a daughter's baptism
> and
> > the mother's burial and MI. They were Methodist's and lived in
> > Shoreditch. When the husband died the will was very strange, being
> > written a year previous to the death 'in great haste in case I
> should
> > die before making a proper will' It was not witnessed and there
> were no
> > executors. . . Presumably this unusual will was
> > designed to obscure the illegality of the second marriage and it's
> > issue. The will was proved with appropriate sworn statements as to
> the
> > writing of the testator and absence of any other will. The widow's
> uncle
> > and brother both left bequests to her and her children in preference
> to
> > the other relatives and I assume that she was in greater need, but
> also
> > that the family supported this illegal second marriage. I suppose as
> non
> > conformists they probably had their own views on the appropriateness
> or
> > otherwise of this particular 'prohibited degree'
> > Joan Stephens
> >


Bill,

I don't know about being an odd bunch....you certainly were treasures at
putting the maiden name of the wife at the time of a child's
baptism...many, many times have I been so thankful for my n/c forebears!

Carole

This thread: