Surname provided by Jean Tomkins (nee Hawker) to Ann Haywood (nee Hawker) in a letter dated 16 February 1992)
Surname provided by Jean Tomkins (nee Hawker) to Ann Haywood (nee Hawker) in a letter dated 16 February 1992)
Information on this family provided by Jean Tomkins (nee Hawker) in a letter to George and Rubbinnia Hawker dated 16 February 1992. She states that John Perkins was a miner.
Information on this family provided by Jean Tomkins (nee Hawker) in a letter to George and Rubbinnia Hawker dated 16 February 1992.
The most likely candidates in the IGI index would be:
Phoebe FELLOWS Sex: F
Event(s):
Christening: 3 Aug 1806 Dudley, Worcester, England
Parents:
Father: Phillip FELLOWS
Mother: Sarah ONIONSIn the 1881 UK census we find:
Dwelling: 27 Church St
Census Place: Dudley, Worcester, England
Source: FHL Film 1341690 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 2877 Folio 43 Page 30
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
John SMART M 61 M Dudley, Worcester, England
Rel: Head
Occ: Shoemaker
Martha SMART M 60 F Dudley, Worcester, England
Rel: Wife
Joseph COOK W 76 M Dudley, Worcester, England
Rel: Lodger Handicap: Blind
Phoebe SHAKESPEARE W 78 F Dudley, Worcester, England
Rel: LodgerThere is a SMART family later in the Shakespeare tree. Frances SMART grandmother of Frances Moore who married Phoebe's grandson John Shakespeare in Illinois. It seems possible therefore that the Phoebe Shakespeare living with John Smart and hiswife in 1881 is Phoebe Fellows. This would cast doubt on the idea of a second marriage.
Information on this family provided by Jean Tomkins (nee Hawker) in a letter to George and Rubbinnia Hawker dated 16 February 1992. She states that in 1861 James was a collier living with his mother and stepfather.
A search of BMD for marriages in the Staffordshire and Dudley areas gave only one likely candidate:
Dec 1869 Penkridge 6b 722 James Shakespeare, Ellen Porter
Information on this family provided by Jean Tomkins (nee Hawker) in a letter to George and Rubbinnia Hawker dated 16 February 1992.
Sister of Thomas Hawker's first wife. Marriage therefore void under the 1835 Lyndhurst Act. However, the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907 made the marriage valid retrospectively.
The following extract was taken (1 Sept 2002) from "The Regency Collection" on the internet at address:
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~awoodley/regency/marry.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Marriage to Deceased Wife's sister
The prohibition on marrying your brother's wife comes from an Old Testament text: "If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an impurity: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless." (Leviticus xx,21.) Now you might well notice that this could easily mean don't take your brother's wife _while he is alive_, but the medieval church interpreted it to mean that people could not marry their deceased spouse's sibling, at all and because the church did grant dispensations from the prohibition.
There was no outright civil ban on these marriages in England although they were certainly discouraged, until the The Marriage Act of 1835. Up until this date these marriages were considered voidable (meaning either party could use the relationship as a reason to annul the marriage - or indeed anyone else might do so if they felt so moved) but were not void.
The case of Charles Austen, the younger brother of Jane Austen is an example of this. In 1814 his first wife, Frances Palmer, died in childbirth. Being a naval officer, he left his surviving three daughters in the care of his wife's older sister Harriet. In 1817, Charles was returned to shore for several years (he did not get another ship until 1826.) In 1820, he and Harriet were married, and remained married for 32 years, until his death in 1852; Harriet died in 1869. They had 4 children, three sons and a daughter. After his marriage, Charles continued to rise in the navy without prejudice because of his marriage; in fact he captained several different ships, was named a Companion of the Bath in 1840, became a rear-admiral in 1846, and was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the East India and China Station in 1850. By then, of course, his marriage with Harriet had been officially sanctioned by the 1835 Marriage Act which closed the possibility of it being challenged under Canonical Law and made void. While it doesn't appear either her father or Charles' father opposed the marriage, it is suggested that the couple did go to France to be married.
Lady Holland perhaps best illustrates the situation commenting the Marquis of Worcester's marriage to his wife's half sister, Emily Frances Smith. They had to marry in Europe, but this was no guarantee that their marriage would not be voided. "The Duchess of Beaufort (Lord Worcester's mother) has had an amiable interview wtih Lord Worcester, & invited Lady Worcester to England. Her religious scruples have taken a turn; but the marriage is still libale to be dissolved any day by an ill-natured person." (from "Lady Holland's Lettters To Her Son". Edited by Lord Ilchester. John Murray, London, 1946. Page 26, April 21, 1824.)
There was not universal supprt for these marriages though, Maria Edgeworth's father was forced to wait for sometime to marry his deceased wife's sister in late eighteenth century Ireland while a clergyman was found who would marry them.
In fact there are instances of these marriages being voided. This is from the March 1810 issue of La Belle Assemblee, under Incidents Occurring In and Near London pp 152-155: "Feb. 27. This day a cause of nullity of marriage brought by Charlotte Aughtie, widow, late wife of William Aughtie, of the parish of St. Mary-le-bow, London by reason of affinity, was decided in the Arches Court. It appeared by the evidence produced, that Gabriel Aughtie, the former husband of Charlotte Aughtie, and William Aughtie (the party now proceeded against) were own brothers. It also appeared by the former marriage, there were issue ten children, five of whom were still living, and by the latter marriage one child. These facts together with other necessary facts, being satisfactorily proved, the court observed, it had no difficulty whatever in pronouncing this to have been an unlawful marriage and thereby pronounced it accordingly."
By the 1830's, eminent people who had contracted these marriages and feared they might later be declared void, sought to have their position stabilized and a bill was introduced by Lord Lyndhurst to regularize them. The bill that was passed in 1835 enacted that "all marriages which shall hereafter be celebrated between persons within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity shall be absolutely null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever." At the same time the act did legalize all marriages within the prohibited degrees of affinity (i.e. with deceased wife's sister) that had been celebrated before August 31, 1835. That meant that all those eminent people (and their children) were safe.
It was only any later marriages, after the date of the marriage act which were void. Beginning in the 1860's, bills were introduced in Parliament just about annually to allow marriage with deceased wife's sister; it finally passed in 1907. The issue prompted the classic line from Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta 'Iolanthe' - "We will prick that annual blister, marriage to deceased wife's sister". In 1907 they finally managed to repeal at least half of it. The Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage act of 28 August that year made it possible to marry one's sister-in-law. Yet it wasn't until 1921 that the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act was passed which made marriage to a brother-in-law legal.
(Reference "The Dictionary of Dates, Everyman's Library, JM Dent and Sons. 1940.) Charles Austen's case wasn't unique. There were a lot of widowers who wanted to marry their sisters-in-law-- it was often she who came to care for her nieces and nephews, and therefore was available.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The photo in the scrapbook was sent by Jean Wint, wife of Ron Wint, to Graham George Hawker on 10 March 2002 via her son-in-law Fraser Simpson
In the 1901 census (RG13/2467 Folio 52 Page 31) living nearby in Aurora Passage were Henry Hawker (51) and his wife Matilda (46) both born in Tewkesbury.
In the 1881 census, the only Henry Hawker born within 2 years of this Henry's date is a Henry Hawker aged 27, born in Chaceley, that was employed as a coachman by Henry St. Clair Wilkins at Hatherley Road Hatherley Hall Cheltenham, Gloucester, England
Source: FHL Film 1341620 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 2574 Folio 13 Page 22
| © 2019 Graham G Hawker | Privacy Policy |