Genealogy Chat

Nope, not that either! They were originally from Windsor (him) and Tiverton (her) and got married in Westminster and Richmond, the places they were working in at the time. Banns were read both times too, so I would think they were both valid marriages.

Hi Carole, They married in the parishes their families originally came from! Not too uncommon, it pleased both sides of the family. and no-one felt 'snubbed'.

Carole May be the first wedding was invalid because the priest wasn't qualified.

Both the marriages were in church, and the first child I have found records for wasn't born until a couple of years later. (That's not to say there wasn't one though!) I'll never know the real reason! Fun to speculate though, thanks for all your suggestions.

Maybe they had a quick civil wedding which was easier to organise and then saved up properly for a proper wedding for all the relatives?Maybe they had to marry in Church to get the child christened there. Kim

Maybe for whatever reason they felt the first marriage wasn't legal/validated and made sure with the second.

Hi, thanks for all your ideas on this, afraid I've been rather busy, so apologies for not adding my response sooner. I don't think the groom was in the Army, as his occupation is "Servant" on both certificates. As you say, maybe they needed to prove they were married and couldn't find the original certificate. He'd moved jobs, perhaps the new employer wouldn't allow them to live as man & wife without the proof. Obviously it is easier to get a new certificate nowadays! It looks like she had given up work in the intervening period, so perhaps I should also be looking for a birth certificate...

Just a theory....maybe in the army the husband had to produce a certificate to prove he was married (so his wife got a widows pension if anything should happen???). Perhaps the certificate was lost and it was easier to just marry again rather than obtain a duplicate?????

Carole, I've seen a few other messages on GC about ancestors being married twice. In those cases it appears the husband was in the army. Crista

Oh, yes! I've certainly come across this before but still haven't got to the bottom of it! My Great Grandparents married at Farnham Register Office in 1880 and again in church in Aldershot in 1882. So far, I have failed to find an explanation as to why they did this. Both appeared to have been of full age for the earlier marriage, but I have not been able to verify this because I can't find Great Gran's birth. Just to add insult to injury, the intervening 1881 census records my Great Grandfather as being single and in barracks, and my Great Grandmother as at home, married and with their first child. Clearly a difference of opinion but I don't think that would have invalidated the first marriage (LOL). What I do know for certain is that the marriage (or both marriages) survived until my Great Grandfather's death in 1903. My mother told me that my Great Grandfather had died of "Lockjaw". What a great shame that she could not have been as eloquent as the doctor certifying the death: "Tetanic convulsions consequent upon wound to foot caused by stepping on a rusty nail." David

Thanks Zoe, maybe, although they were both parish churches, and on both certificates they are listed as a bachelor & spinster. I wonder if they hadn't told their parents about the first one (they were adult so wouldn't have needed consent) as they married close to where they lived/worked. They were only servants though, so they wouldn't have had money to splash around for a second wedding.

Carole it may be simply that they were of different religions and they felt the need to marry in each church. Zoe

Curiosity got the better of me and I ordered both marriage certificates and sure enough, they ARE the same people. They got married in Westminster in 1866, when they were both domestic servants in the same house, and again a year later in Richmond. Now I'm even more perplexed - why would they do that?

Thanks for that Geoff. I think Richmond is likely to be the right one, it just seems unbelievable that there could be 2 Henry Rixons marrying 2 Emma Gills! Hi Teresa! Since doing all this research, I've discovered some ancestors in Ireland too. Don't we all get around!

1881 census Household Record 1881 British Census Search results | Download Previous Household Next Household -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Household: Name Relation Marital Status Gender Age Birthplace Occupation Disability Henry J. RIXON Head M Male 39 Windsor, Berkshire, England Servant (D) Emma RIXON Wife M Female 37 Tiverton, Devon, England Emma HILL Cousin U Female 20 Tiverton, Devon, England Assistant (Gen Dom) Harriet E. RIXON Daugh U Female 11 Richmond, Surrey, England Scholar Ellen RIXON Daugh U Female 10 Richmond, Surrey, England Scholar Catherine M. RIXON Daugh U Female 7 Richmond, Surrey, England Scholar -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source Information: Dwelling 3 Lorne Cotts Census Place Richmond, Surrey, England Family History Library Film 1341200 Public Records Office Reference RG11 Piece / Folio 0845 / 74 Page Number 11 Household Record 1881 British Census Search results | Download Previous Household Next Household -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Household: Name Relation Marital Status Gender Age Birthplace Occupation Disability Henry S. RIXON Head M Male 51 Talkley, Essex, England Jeweller Emma RIXON Wife M Female 45 Harlow, Essex, England Henry E. RIXON Son U Male 20 London, Middlesex, England Jeweller Edith M. RIXON Daur Female 7 London, Middlesex, England Scholar Herbert H. RIXON Son Male 5 London, Middlesex, England Scholar Ann Elizabeth HOCKLEY Visitor M Female 35 Hedingham, Essex, England -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source Information: Dwelling 72 Herbert Street Census Place London, Middlesex, England Family History Library Film 1341084 Public Records Office Reference RG11 Piece / Folio 0389 / 47 Page Number 19 Perhaps the second family was a second marriage for that Henry as there is a big gap between children.

One of them is on IGI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY JAMES RIXON Male Family -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marriages: Spouse: EMMA GILL Family Marriage: 22 APR 1867 Saint Mary Magdalen, Richmond, Surrey, England -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Messages: Extracted marriage record for locality listed in the record. The source records are usually arranged chronologically by the marriage date. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source Information: Batch No.: Dates: Source Call No.: Type: Printout Call No.: Type: M013343 1781 - 1876 0991696-0991698 Film 6906052 Film

Carole, i've had this happen but for me what was even stranger was that both of the husbands fathers had the same name!! luckily my mums godmother has the original marriage cert(from 1850)so i had no problems finding the right one, good luck with your search, karen

Has anyone ever come across this before? I was searching on FreeBMD for my great-grandparents marriage and put both names in the search, Henry Rixon and Emma Gill. It brought up TWO records where both names are on the same index page! One was in Westminster in Sept 1866, the other in Richmond in June 1867. If they were common names, I'd just put it down to a coincidence, but they aren't really that common and as the marriages are so close together it has really flummoxed me! I have asked someone on the Records board to try to find them on the 1851 Census, to see if I can get the fathers' names before I order certificates. Does anyone else have any ideas?