Question about family history research

[listsandbudgets]

Doing some research at the moment.. Does anyone know what name is shown on the records if a woman remarries following divorce?

Is it there original maiden name or their married name.

Irritatingly I've hit a block and neither name seems to show a record but it i clear from later records that she remarried at some point.

I found a few of those .. Ancestors marrying widows .

They tend to show under their former husbands surname Op. Not sure about Divorcees.

It should be the name they were known as immediately prior to the remarriage - so ordinarily the first husband's name, unless they reverted to the maiden name via deed poll.

I think it's the married name in the BMD index. It should show the maiden name on the marriage certificate.
Are you absolutely sure she remarried and wasn't just using the name (I've seen this a lot). Also, is it possible the marriage happened abroad? Armed forces records have their own BMD register so maybe you could try there?

On the actual certificate it will say "Divorced wife of ..."

In the indexes, women with multiple surnames will usually appear under all their surnames (that they've informed the registrar of), especially in more recent records.

Of course, if they just didn't mention their previous marriage...

What sort of date are you looking at, as I think these things have tightened up with the advent of electronic record keeping.

But as PP say, for older records BMD index usually gives name immediately prior to new marriage, ie previous married name.

Thank you I've found it now. It happened about 10 years earlier than I thought and yes it was under the married name.

Oh excellent.

I was just coming back to say, I've checked one of my divorcees, and the index for her remarriage in 1920 includes both her maiden name and her name in her first marriage.

...... which is concerning as it suggests this particular lady may have been a bigamist. Unless I've got the wrong divorce record she remarried 4 years before she divorced.

NOW I'm confused

Might be worth ordering the certificate, in that case.

I thikn I'm going to have to Surelyyourjoking.

Interesting though a good scandal is I've got to put it aside for now and do some real work. Tomorrow is another day. My ancestors have waited 65 years they can wait a bit longer I think!

Hahaha was told Friday by Mum and an Aunt that we had had a bigamist in family too ..

Extremely annoying when you come to a dead end.

I am stuck on a Gt Gt Grandfather . Can find a birth record but sadly nothing anywhere about his parents.. I am curious to his parentage as he had a most unusual (still is ) forename for the UK

"which is concerning as it suggests this particular lady may have been a bigamist. Unless I've got the wrong divorce record she remarried 4 years before she divorced."

It's possible she was. Divorce was quite expensive and not socially acceptable so people often didn't go through with it or delayed it until it was more practical.

I don't have any examples of ancestors claiming to be divorced when they remarried but I do have a couple who claimed to be widowed when their first spouses were still very much alive. Also some who didn't marry until some time after they had been living together and havi9ng children. One couple only got married in their sixties, but referred to each other as husband and wife for thirty years

RachelRagged, depending on the date of your gt gt grandfather you might find the census records helpful.

ConferencePear

I have found him on two. 1841 and 1851, he died about 1856.

Lived to a ripe old age for the times as he was born i 1777

You cannot 'do' family history properly without buying the certificates. Just guessing that 'may' be your relative/connection really isn't good enough, it's all too easy to get the wrong one and be led down the wrong path. Always confirm your findings with the certificates and then it's 'proven'. Expensive yes, but at least it's right!

Another no no, never take another person's tree as gospel. Use it as guidance/information certainly, but always 'prove' your line/s yourself (see notes above). I've seen far too many family trees researched extremely poorly and literally cobbled together to last me a lifetime. The biggest problem is people believing them and sharing the information further, thus perpetuating the original mistakes.

I've an example that listed the wife's name as

Sarah Lamborn nee Ranger

So the surname she was using at the time (that of her dead husband) and her surname at birth.

I saw her name on something else saying Sarah Huntley formerly Lamborn nee Ranger but can't remember what document that was!

If you have him on the 1851 census you should have a parish of birth. Have you tried the parish register ? (Sorry if I'm trying to teach you to suck eggs)

He was born in a different county to where he ended up on the censuses ConferencePear.

I would order his birth certificate out of any one as his name fascinatess me and I wonder if our dark eyes and hair and nigh olive skin come from him.. His name is Indian, We are all either English, Scottish, Irish or from many centuries ago Denmark . In fact I might , It would have at least his Mothers name would it not ? Knowing my luck he was a foundling or something but the surname is the family name of my paternal grandmothers side.

If you're dealing with a divorce you can look at the announcements in the paper to help you get the right year. I found out my grandad's first wife was unfaithful with a man in New York. No idea why she was there.

RachelRagged, if you look at the last but one column on the 1851 census it will tell you the parish he was born in. The 1841 census only gives a county.

Thanks ConferencePear , I will do that.