Marriage annulment

[Ann from Sussex]

OH's gt.grandparents were Joseph Guy and Frances nee Robins who married in Nottingham in 1859. We found them on every census except the 1851. I recently decided to revisit this gap in my records. I still haven't found Joseph but found a previously missed marriage record for Frances Robins from 1848 at St Mary's Church Nottingham to a Frederick Warsop. I found Frederick and Frances Warsop on the 1851 census. She has the right age and birthplace to be OH'S gt grandmother AND they were living next door to Joseph Guy's brother. I sent for the Warsop marriage certificate and her father's name fits with who I already know "our" Frances's to be. Only his occupation differs from the Guy certificate but he was an unskilled worker in each case so I don't think that is critical. She was also living in the right area of Nottingham. I can't find any other Frances Robins or another Robins family anywhere in Nottingham at that time...it is a more unusual way of spelling the name. When she married Joseph Guy in 1859 (at the same church incidentally) she married in the name of Robins and is described on the certificate as a spinster. So....my dilemma is, how did this happen? She lived in the same district, consisting of courts, yards and alleys all her life, she had two weddings in the same parish church; surely someone would have come forward to say she was breaking the law? These people were framework knitters so couldn't have afforded a divorce and the only other explanation I can think of is annulment of the first marriage. There don't appear to have been any children so maybe she could say it wasn't consummated and I have come across a newspaper report of Warsop being tried and going to prison for assaulting her. I gather annulment was a religious matter but it mostly seems to have been a Roman Catholic thing and this was a CoE marriage. I am convinced these two marriage certificates I have relate to the same woman. Frederick Warsop, by the way, is on all the subsequent censuses living with two further women but shown as single. If the marriage was annulled where is there likely to be a record of it? Would that have been too expensive for ordinary working people? If anyone knows about annulment or has any other ideas I'd be grateful as I want to get to the bottom of this mystery.

[Olde Crone]

I remember discussing annulment of marriage at length some years ago. I think it was Merry who came up with the surprising (to me, lol) information that annulments are recorded along with divorces.

I do know however, that if a marriage is annulled, both parties are entitled to call themselves never married, i.e. spinster or bachelor.

OC

[Merry]

Erm, I don't remember saying that or knowing it! lol

I do remember saying that an annulled marriage would still appear inn the records (GRO indexes and PRs where applicable etc)

This is from a TNA research guide:

Declaration of nullity
The church (consistory) courts of the bishops could grant a declaration of nullity, meaning the marriage was considered invalid from the start. The children became illegitimate and the wife lost her right to inherit from her husband.
You can find consistory courts records in local archives.

Annulment
An annulment was a form of legal separation which protected the wife’s rights and kept the children legitimate, but neither party could remarry unless the other died. The husband or wife could subsequently apply to the church court for a declaration of nullity.

Have you looked to see if Frederick Warsop had died by the date of the second marriage?

[kiterunner]

Maybe Frederick Warsop was already married when he married Frances, in which case his marriage to her would have been invalid?

[Merry]

There don't seem to be any previous marriages for Frederick on the GRO index.

Nottingham Review and General Advertiser for the Midland Counties 05 January 1849

At St. Mary’s, on the 31st ult., Mr. Abraham Wakefield, to Miss Emma Dale; Mr. Frederick Warsop, to Miss Frances Robins; and Mr. John Snell, to Miss Rebecca Walker Keetley.

Is this the same Frederick (actually, probably not! See further down.....)?

Marriages Sep 1852

CRESSLEY Joseph Radford 7b 189
Crossley Joseph Radford 7b 189
Green Lucy Radford 7b 189
WARSOP Frederick Radford 7b 189
WARSOP Sarah Butler Radford 7b 189

1861 census:

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/8767/NTTRG9_2444_2447-0882?pid=22167701&backurl=https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db%3Duki1861%26indiv%3Dtry%26h%3D22167701&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&usePUBJs=true

Children:

WARSOP, SARAH mmn WARSOP
GRO Reference: 1853 S Quarter in RADFORD Volume 07B Page 133

WARSOP, JOSEPH mmn WARSOP
GRO Reference: 1859 D Quarter in RADFORD Volume 07B Page 161

Hmm, maybe the above Frederick is not the same person (his age is unclear in 1861 and I haven't looked for this family on later censuses), as I just found this (below) and the date is well after most of the above events:

Nottinghamshire Guardian 05 July 1855

POLICE OFFICE NOTTINGHAM

ASSAULTING A WIFE - Frederick Warsop, framework-knitter, Turncalf Alley, was charged with having, on the 23rd ultimo, assaulted his wife Frances. The charge having been proved, the defendant was called upon to find sureties for his good conduct, and to pay the expenses, 15s 6d. In default of payment he was ordered to be committed to prison.

[Merry]

There is a Frederick Warsop on the 1871 census who fits for age, dob and occ, wife Hannah. Hannah died in 1880 and Fred is listed as a widower in 1881, but I don't see a marriage to a Hannah (though she could have been an Ann, or the marriage might not be showing up (I only looked at FreeBMD)).

I should think this is the Frederick who married Frances and perhaps didn't marry Hannah as he considered himself still married to Frances.

[Ann from Sussex]

Sorry I posted this and then didn't get back yesterday - something cropped up that kept me away from my records so I could compare what I had with what Merry found.

I am convinced that the two Fredericks are the same and the two Franceses (is that how you write the plural of Frances?) also. The Frederick Warsop who married Sarah Warsop in the Radford district of Nottingham in 1852 is a different man: in 1861 there is a couple with those names living in the Lenton area of Nottingham which would be covered by the Radford registration district.

Did you notice that in 1861 Hannah Richardson has two daughters, Sarah and Lucy who have the surname Richardson? Sarah Ann Richardson's birth was registered in the Basford district (which covers Arnold which is given as the girls' birthplace on the census) in Sept qtr 1852. Lucy Warsop Richardson's birth was registered in the Basford district in Sept qtr 1858. Lucy Warsop Richardson died aged 4 in the Sept qtr 1867. By the 1871 census both mother Hannah and daughter Sarah Richardson iare now using the surname Warsop but there is no marriage record that I can find either Merry.

In 1881, after Hannah had died Frederick was living with a "housekeeper" called Mary Bramley and describing himself as a widower. In 1891 and 1901 he is "single" and living with an Emma Coleman.

Thanks for the work you've done Merry. You have told me what I wanted to know and couldn't find....that even with an annulment neither party was free to marry until the other had died. Frederick Warsop died in 1910, Frances in 1909. Thinking about it all, I don't think they had an annulment: Frederick passed himeslf and Hannah off as married but Frances!...... it does all seem to point to her being a bigamist but there isn't any absolute proof of that. I don't even have a signature to compare on the two marriage certificates as each one was signed "Frances Robins, her mark".

[Merry]

lol I never looked at the 1861 census!

No, I agree, I very much doubt they had an annulment - what would be the grounds? Much more likely they just separated, possibly because of Frederick's behaviour, and then the just both got on with their lives.

[Nell]

This is why family history is so intriguing! I've found a bigamist in my family. They separated but the wife (she was widowed by her first husband) kept her bigamous surname. Her "husband" wasn't living with her or his first wife later on. Divorce was almost impossible for ordinary people and quite disgraceful for upper-class women.

[Olde Crone]

It was pretty disgraceful for middle class women too! In 1960 I lived with my parents in a small cul de sac and a divorced lady bought a house there. All the residents were up in arms about this poor woman, who knows what her story was, but she was divor ced and therefore scandalous.

OC

[Janet in Yorkshire]

It was pretty disgraceful for middle class women too! In 1960 I lived with my parents in a small cul de sac and a divorced lady bought a house there. All the residents were up in arms about this poor woman, who knows what her story was, but she was divor ced and therefore scandalous.

OC
And most likely her former husband was regularly invited out to dine and welcomed into neighbours' homes because he was "a poor man all on his own," having formerly been married to a truly "awful" woman.

Jay