You are hereForums / Genealogy Research / Marriage status inconsistency

Marriage status inconsistency

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/lafamilia/ on line 123.

By labananilla - Posted on 24 October 2020


I have a question that's haunting me a little. My great grandmother, Francisca Ríos, appears to be a widow at the moment of marrying my great grandfather: born in 1899, she marries Bartolomé Quezada in 1918, and the registry appears both in civil registration and church records, and it shows even in her baptism record.

However, in 1926 she marries José María Quezada, my great grandfather, saying that she's 22 years old. Her name, her parents' names and even her grandparents' names are exactly the same, but both the civil registry and the church records say she's "célibe", not a widow or anything of the sort. The church record doesn't mention any need for a dispensa, or acknlowledges in any way that previous marriage.

¿Does anyone have an idea of why this could happen? Two registries seem too much to be an honest mistake.

Marriage record of José María Quesada and Francisca Ríos.

Marriage record of Francisca Rios and Bartolo Quesada:

A marriage wasn’t Considered a marriage until the couple “slept” together. If something happened that prevented Francisca Rios and Bartolo from sleeping together then the marriage was said to have not been consummated.

Hi!! Yes, that's what I thought. But I wonder if that was the case, wouldn't they need a dispensa where they could state that the previous marriage was not consummated and hence not valid? Also, I don't know if the civil registry would really care about that. I am also intrigued about the age difference: it's about ten years. Still, all the other names are the same, and Capellanía is very small so I really don't think there's a possibility this is someone else.

I had a case similar to this Ine where the sisters had the same name.

Last month I was researching another case where the same couple married thirty five years separating the two marriages. The second marriage celebration was just that, a celebration. The second record didn’t mention that they had been married 35 years prior. The first marriage record provided extra information showing more generations.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 4 guests online.

Online users

  • arturoramos