Genealogy Forum UK

I’ve come across two individuals who married each other twice in successive years in neighbouring parishes, both times as ‘Batchelor’ and ‘Spinster’. Both marriages are to be found on BMD, so were Registered. The groom was a private in the Royal Marines Light Infantry, and a search of RM weddings on FMP shows just one of the weddings.

The couple appear in the 1911 Census and tell us that they had no children. I’ve attached the Marriage Records and would be grateful for any help in explaining this rather odd state of affairs.


Thanks,

Kevin

Hi. It is a bit odd. One of the witnesses is the same, is that the bride's mother? I notice that the bride's father is deceased in the 2nd marriage but not in the first. Does that reflect the truth?
Could it be some Naval nitpicking about the first marriage? Occasionally people married a second time if it turned out that the first marriage did not "count" because of problems with where it took place or who officiated.
Or could it be that the Navy allowed only a few weeks to resgister a marriage with them, and this couple overshot? I suppose it would need to be registered in order to get extra pay or a pension. Maybe you could find an expert on that?

Thanks for your reply. Yes, Mary Ann Bounden was the mother of Mary Jane. The family is to be seen in the 1871 Census but I’ve yet to see them on the 1881 so can’t yet be sure of when John died. But I’ve noted before that sometimes a deceased parent is shown as deceased, sometimes just the name is used even if he/she had died, so I don’t attach much significance to that.

The odd thing to me is that the first wedding was Registered, and therefore had full validity. Yet on the second occasion they are still Batchelor and Spinster. Mary Jane is shown as living in Batter Street when the first wedding took place; Batter Street is and was in Plymouth (which is where the wedding took place). By the time of the second marriage they are both living in Stonehouse, which was then (and is now) where the Royal Marines were based. So I’m guessing they were then co-habiting.

But it seems to me that if the first marriage was valid, as it would appear to have been, the RM would have no business not recognising it and requiring a second. Does that make sense?

But thanks very much again for your reply.