Genealogy Chat

I have a scenario where potentially a woman buried her husband on 21 Oct 1711 & remarried on 30 Nov 1711. Whilst I have come across other cases where people have married again within a matter of a few months of losing a spouse, I haven't come across what appears to be such a short gap before, so I am doubting whether this really is a second marriage so soon.
To clarify, I have established that the first husband did not have a sister of the same name whose marriage this could be. He died young with only a 2 year old child, so this is not a daughter, & his siblings were all younger females, so it is not a niece either. Nor does he appear to have any cousins of the same name. We are not dealing with a common surname.
At the moment I am looking at the situation as being one where once all the alternatives have been discounted, what remains, however unlikely, is the truth.
Have others come across short gaps like this?

Have you been able to view the image? With a bit of luck it might say 'widow of'.
It is a bit quick, but on the other hand a new husband would provide financial support.

I do have a similar but different situation. She and her husband had separated quite early in the marriage. She was a 'housekeeper' for at least 10 years to the person she promptly married.

You have to assume that she already had a relationship with this person, as it's so soon, and her husband dying enabled her to marry. I wonder what he died of...!

Yes, I have as PR scans are on line, but unfortunately during this period only bare details are shown in the register. So no indication of marital status, no ages for burials, no mother's names on baptisms. Usually if the BT's have an extra details on marriages the local FHS have these included these in their transcript - but there's nothing in this case.

It depends how verbose the Priest is ;-)
It's a pity your stuck to the minimum.

Jan - that did cross my mind as well

You say it is an uncommon name.
Say you have John and Mary XXX.
John XXX has died and Mary XXX marries only a month or so afterwards.
If the name is so uncommon, can you look for a birth for a Mary XXX?
Not a definitive solution but if you can't find a corresponding birth it is more likely that XXX is Mary's (first) married name.

In any event I think that in those days people had a much more practical view of marriage. A woman on her own with a small child would have no way of supporting herself and would need to find a husband fairly quickly. Likewise a man would be quick to find a woman to keep his house and maybe look after his own family if he was a widower.

Beverley, looking for a baptism for Mary Xxxx as potential sister etc to John Xxxx I came up blank ln anything in the area. I can follow the logic that especially if Mary had no relatives locally finding a man to support her and her child would have been crucial.

My great grandfather buried his first wife on 6/1/1875 and married my great grandmother on 20/2/1875.

This is just 6 weeks, which is the same as in Julie's case.

Another great grandfather buried his first wife on 4/6/1874 and married my great grandmother on 20/7/1874.

Again, just 6 weeks, which may be the minimum time possible.

In both these cases the men were left with young children and presumably needed someone to look after them.

My theory

Week 1 for the burial
Week 2 to find someone
Week 3, 4 & 5 for the banns
Week 6 the marriage