While researching some extended family members, I came across an unusual marriage.
Ernest Wheeley and Emily Marian Phipps were married in 1923 and their daughter, Cissie was born the following year. Sadly, Ernest died only a few years later in 1929 and Emily married the next year. Although a widow remarrying is very common and can be expected, what makes this case unusual is that Emily had married the nephew of her deceased husband.
Ernest’s nephew, Charles Meller – who was was roughly 12 years younger than Emily – was the son of his sister Blanche Wheeley and Joseph Meller.
Charles was the nephew of Emily’s first husband, Ernest
There has long been a list of ‘forbidden marriages’ based on the bible. Way back in 1503, even King Henry VIII had to request a special dispensation so he could marry his brother Arthur’s widow, Katherine of Aragon. In 1907 the law changed to allow marriage to a wife’s sister or husband’s brother but only if the first spouse was deceased. In 1921, marriage to a brother’s wife or sister’s husband also became legal (only if the first spouse was deceased). This change in law likely came about due to the dramatic reduction in population after World War I. The law was again changed in 1931 to allow marriage to an aunt/uncle-in-law or niece/nephew-in-law (again only if the relevant people were deceased). [source: Forbidden Marriage Laws of the United Kingdom] However, in this case, Charles and Emily were married in 1930 – the year before it became legal for them to do so.
By 1939, the couple had a son together, Ronald, and Cissie had taken the name of her mother’s new husband (and Cissie’s first cousin), Meller. A clue to the unusual relationship can be found on the 1939 register entry – upon Cissie’s marriage in 1943, her original name of Wheeley was added along with her new married name of Dickinson (Cissie used the name Wheeley when she married).
There could be many reasons for marrying a the spouse of a deceased family member and at times it was encouraged. It is impossible to know the nature of the couple’s relationship prior to Ernest’s death (without family anecdotes to rely on). A clue that this union may not have had the family’s blessing may lie in their address. Charles and Emily were on Hollemeadow Road, whereas the rest of the family seemed to live more closely together on or near Pleck Road (the other side of town). But, of course, this is just speculation on my part.
In 1901, Thomas Henry WHEELEY and Ann ROGERS had been married for 23 years and had had 8 children together. They were living on Dalkeith Street in Walsall – a row of terraced houses built alongside the Walsall Locks less than ten years before (in the early 1890s). Thomas was a ‘brown saddler’ living in “a poor locality” so life was probably not easy for the family.
Thomas Henry Wheeley and Ann Rogers on the 1901 census
On Saturday the 20th May, 1905 – only a few years after the census was taken – the family had ‘a quarrel’. Thomas who had been out drinking, came home and argued with Ann, calling her names. Ann, in turn, threatened to throw a saucer at him and Thomas attacked her with a knife. Their 18-year-old son, George Alfred, seeing this take place, struggled with his father and was subsequently hit on the head with some tongs [Not sure if these would be saddler tongs or coal tongs or another type). Ann had managed to escape the house during the scuffle and discovered she had been cut on the wrist.
Walsall Advertiser 27 May 1905 p6 c7
BEER, AND A QUARREL.
A saddler named Thomas Wheeley (53), of 91, Dalkeith Street, was charged with unlawfully wounding Ann Wheeley, his wife, with a knife, and also with violently assaulting Alfred Wheeley, his son, by hitting him on the head with a pair of tongs. -The police authorities agreed to withdraw the charges, and substitute charges of common assault only. -The story for the prosecution was that on Saturday night the man Wheeley went home under the influence of drink, and a quarrel, arose. He called his wife a bad name, and she threatened to throw a saucer at him. During the quarrel she found that she had received a wound on the wrist, and went out of the house. -The son’s evidence was to the effect that he saw his father with a knife, and struggled with him. He succeeded in getting his mother out of the house, but while he was doing so he was struck on the head with the tongs. -Dr Mackenzie-in-Thurm (house surgeon at the hospital) said he attended to the woman’s injured wrist. There was only a small punctured wound. It was not serious. -The magistrates sentenced Wheeley to 14 days’ imprisonment. (Walsall Advertiser 27 May 1905 p6 c7)
I find it interesting that “the police authorities agreed to withdraw the charges, and substitute charges of common assault only”. Who requested the charges be withdrawn/substituted? Common assault is a lesser charge than ‘unlawfully wounding’ or ‘violently assaulting’ [source] and so appears to minimise Thomas’ actions. Was the switch to a lesser charge because: a) there was a lack of evidence of more serious injuries; b) prosecution were more likely to secure a conviction this way; or c) the general view that domestic violence was less serious?
Thomas’ two-week stint in prison for the assaults seemed to have little effect. A few weeks later, the couple were living at separate addresses – Thomas on Cannon Street and Ann at 481 Pleck Road – when Ann requested a separation order to support her and their four remaining dependent children – Sidney, Ernest, Grace Hilda and Maria (whose ages ranged from 14 to 7).
Walsall Advertiser 24 June 1905 p2 c5
PERSISTENT CRUELTY.
Thomas Henry Wheeley, Cannon Street, was summoned for persistent cruelty to his wife, who applied for an order against him. -Complainant stated that she had been obliged to leave her husband because of his persistent cruelty. She had been married 29 years and had eight children, four of which were depending upon her. Her husband had assaulted her several times and was always threatening her. She had had seven pair of black eyes in less than three months. -The Chairman (to defendant): How many black eyes have you given her since you were married? -Two, that’s all sir. -An order for 10s a week was eventually made. (Walsall Advertiser 24 June 1905 p2 c5-6)
In 1895, the ‘Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act’ was introduced. It allowed married women to apply to the magistrates’ courts for separation and maintenance orders if their husbands had:
i. been convicted of an aggravated assault under S.43 of the Offences Against The Persons Act 1861
ii been convicted on indictment for assault and sentenced to at least two months imprisonment or fined £5
iii. deserted them
iv. been guilty of persistent cruelty so as to make their wives leave home.
v. wilfully neglected to maintain so as to cause their wives to leave home.
(Radford, M. T. (1988) The law and domestic violence against women. PhD Thesis. University of Bradford. Available from: https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/handle/10454/3875 (Accessed: 13 May 2020), page 38)
Ann applied for an order of separation on the grounds of his persistent cruelty and subsequent articles definitely paint a picture of an unhappy marriage marred with ‘persistent cruelty’ and alcohol abuse.
A coal hod for sale in 1904 – Thomas was witnessed to have struck his wife Ann with one.
Ann told the court that her husband had ‘never treated her kindly’ and that she had had ‘seven pair of black eyes in less than three months’. Thomas denied this and claimed he had ‘only’ given her two and struck her ‘no more than three times’. Ann also claimed that Thomas had hit her on the head with a coal hod – a claim supported by their 25 year old daughter, Blanche who witnessed the incident. Blanche also confirmed that her father had ‘frequently’ given her mother black eyes. However she also said that her mother had also ‘been under the influence of drink’ but this had not been for some time since “she has not had the money”.
Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle 24 June 1905 p2 c5
SEVEN PAIRS OF BLACK EYES IN SIX MONTHS –
Thomas Wheeley, saddler, Cannon Street, was summoned by his wife, Ann Wheeley, of 481, Pleck Road, who sought to obtain a separation order on the ground of his persistent cruelty. -Complainant stated that she had been married 29 years, and of her eight children four were dependent upon her. Her husband, who was resently [sic] sent to prison for stabbing her in the wrist, had said that he had done 14 days, and he would yet do 14 years for her. He had never treated her kindly, and a few weeks ago he had struck her on the head with a coal hod. He had given her seven pairs of black eyes in less than six months. Since he came out of prison he had continually threatened what he would do to her. -She denied, in cross-examination by defendant that he had not struck her more than three times since they had been married. -In reply to a question from the Bench, defendant said he had only given his wife two black eyes, and she denied that she had been locked up for being drunk. -Blanche Marston, daughter, also spoke to her father’s ill-treatment of her mother, and said that he had frequently given her black eyes; she did not know how many. She saw him strike her with the coal hod. She admitted that her mother had been under the influence of drink, but not for some time. “She has not had the money,” she added, amid laughter. Since her father came back from gaol his language had been unbearable. -Complainant was re-called, and asked for 10s. a week. -An order was made for that amount. (Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle 24 June 1905 p2 c5)
Despite the 1895 act, it’s clear that domestic violence was still not regarded as seriously as it should. Thomas’ seemingly casual, or even blasé attitude regarding the violence he actually admits to inflicting on his wife indicates that beating your wife was largely seen as ‘fine’ depending on its regularity or severity. A woman’s options were very limited and there were many reasons a wife would remain with an abusive husband – whether financial, emotional or social.
For whatever reasons, Thomas and Ann were together again by the 1911 census.
Wheeley family on the 1911 census (130 Bridgeman Street)
I was completely unaware of the events of 1905 until recently. Thomas and Ann appeared in every census together since their marriage in 1878 (1881-1911) so I didn’t expect there to have been such a rift. We like or want to believe that the families we research lived peacefully together despite their often difficult lives. My discovery of these newspaper articles reminded me this is often not the case.
The census is only a ‘snapshot’ every ten years – it’s important to remember this. A lot can happen between these ‘snapshots’. Just as living at the same address two censuses in a row doesn’t always mean they’d actually been there all that time, a family simply living together does not always mean their lives were harmonious all that time.
I previously wrote about the brief marriage between William Henry Marston and Blanche Emma Wheeley in the post, Wheeley Interesting. I have just discovered that five years after their unhappy relationship broke down, there was a development…
Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle, 2 June 1906 , p3 c6
Basically, the amount of support Marston had to pay Blanche had been dropped to 7s.6d (approximately £29.46 in today’s money) [The wording makes it unclear whether this happened in July 1901 or July 1906]. However, Marston was now complaining that he shouldn’t have to pay support to his ex-wife at all, since she was living with another man.
…It was now alleged that defendant was living with Joseph Mellor in Moat Road. -Defendant did not appear, and Sergeant Haycock stated that when he served the summons she admitted in the presence of Mellor that she was co-habiting with him, and said she should not contest the case. -Mrs. Hargreaves, of Manor Road, sister of Mellor, stated that the latter and Mrs. Marston had been living together as man and wife for three or four months…
The new relationship may have come to his attention through Blanche being heavily pregnant with her eldest son, Joseph, who was born only a month after the article appeared. He and his brother, Charles appear with their parents on the 1911 census – still living in Moat Road, Walsall.
The Meller/Marston family on the 1911 census – 135 Moat Rd, Walsall
Blanche and Joseph had 4 children (one who died as an infant) before they were finally wed in 1913. These children were recorded under the surname Marston as that was still Blanche’s legal name, but the parentage was made clear by also including the name, Mellor. After their marriage, the couple had 4 more children, although one died when only a few months old. By 1939, all the children had dropped the ‘Marston’ from their name and used only ‘Mellor/Meller’.
Since divorce at that time was unlikely, and remarriage was illegal with a spouse still living, I presumed William must have died. He was still alive in 1911, living with his new ‘wife’ and son, Percival William Marston, but there was no death record before 1913.
William Henry Marston with his new family on the 1911 census – 49 Charlotte St, Walsall
William & Lizzie listed themselves as married on the 1911 census but there is no trace of a marriage between them. [Intriguingly, there is a marriage in 1911 of a ‘Percy W Marston’ to a ‘Lizzie Jackson’ in Southwell district, Nottinghamshire but an appropriate person with this name can actually be traced through the censuses. Also, the surname of Percival’s mother is given as Mitchell in the birth indexes.] It turns out, William and his family left England for South Africa in June 1913! They returned in 1919 for a few years before leaving permanently in 1921.
I don’t think it’s mere coincidence that Blanche and Joseph were married in July 1913. The expense alone meant divorce was unobtainable for the working class at this time. With Blanche’s ex-husband out of the country, they may have considered it their opportunity to finally marry (albeit illegally). The couple were still together in 1939 so I like to think Blanche did get that happy ending after all (at least for a while!).
Researching the children of Thomas Henry WHEELEY led me to a few interesting discoveries this morning – particularly to do with his eldest daughters.
His first born daughter, Gertrude Annie Wheeley married a Thomas Fox in 1900 at St Andrews Church, Walsall. His second born daughter, Blanche Emma Wheeley was there and signed as a witness to the marriage along with possibly their younger brother, Thomas (presuming that the father would have signed his name as Thomas Henry as recorded above).
Marriage entry of Gertrude Annie Wheeley & Thomas Fox
The next year, Blanche Emma married a man called William Henry Marston. William was Roman Catholic and I was surprised to see the marriage entry recorded in latin (this is the first instance of Catholic records in my research).
Marriage entry of Blanche Emma Wheeley & William Henry Marston
Checking the census, I was pleased to find the sisters together – Blanche was visiting Gertrude at their Inn in Darlaston – the Britannia. Blanche had also brought along their 5 year old sister, Hilda.
1901 census showing Wheeley siblings staying with Gertrude Annie and her husband Thomas
I always love finding entries like these as it shows how the families were still in touch throughout the years but it turns out this was not such a happy story. Blanche was in fact staying with her sister after an altercation with her new husband and his mother.
In an article headed, ‘SOON TIRED OF MATRIMONIAL LIFE’, it outlined how the relationship soured after only 5 weeks (!) of marriage:
The parties were only married in January this year, and went to live defendant’s mother in Lumley Road, Walsall. Unpleasantness seemed to have arisen through the defendant’s mother, and the defendant always appeared to side with his mother. Five weeks after the marriage the defendant ordered his wife to leave the house on two occasions. On March 26th a dispute arose between the complainant and the defendant’s mother, and the defendant then practically turned his wife out of the house. The following day complainant went with her own mother to defendant to see what he was going to do. Defendant declined to have her back again and told her that if she wanted anything from him for her maintenance she would have to go to law to get it.
Sounds like William tried to make out it was because she was running him into debt but it seems like this was untrue as their was only a small amount owing for groceries. William was ordered to pay Blanche 12s 6d a week (approximately £48 in today’s money – worth about a day’s wages at the time).
Walsall Advertiser 20 April 1901 p8 c7
The address given by Blanche was her sister’s residence – the Brittania Inn. Another interesting point was that this incident happened only 5 days before the census evening (31 March 1901).
A young bachelor George EBBANS (far right?) with two of his brothers (c1910)
The family story goes that George Ebbans (b. 1893) left his wife and children around 1927 and started a new family with another woman.
In my mother-in-law’s words:
George Ebbans married Sarah Ann Crossley. They had 2 children, Irene and George. For some reason, my mother-in-law says George spread it around and Sarah Ann (known as Sarann) was no angel. George left their home and could not be traced for quite a few years. It later emerged that he had gone to live in Wolverhampton and lived with another woman (can’t find any record of a divorce or remarry). They raised a family, don’t know how many but one was christened George just to complicate matters. (It was also known that Sarann and her mother didn’t want George around so his reputation could well be made up).
Sarah Ebbans (nee CROSSLEY) in centre far left
This information seemed to come from family members who had first hand knowledge of the people, so I have no reason to doubt it. However, I have also been unable to find any evidence of this desertion…
Until now.
Found in the Birmingham Daily Gazette, 25 November 1930, p3:
£174 ARREARS.
“I should have liked to give you another chance, but it is impossible; this has been going on for five years,” said the Mayor of Walsall yesterday in sentencing George Ebbans, aged 34, labourer, 35 Farringdon-street, to three months’ imprisonment for owing £174 maintenance arrears and costs due to his wife and two children.
Ebbans pleaded, “I have not been picking up a lot of money, and I have had to pay for my lodgings.”
The trail still ends there really. Still no evidence of a second family in Wolverhampton – marriage or children – and I am yet to even find a death record for George himself.
But we now know that he did indeed desert his family and had done by at least 1925 – the same year his second child was born. It probably was hard for George to find enough money to support himself but I’m sure it was even harder for Sarah looking after two children and working as a hospital laundry maid (source: 1939 register).
National Registration Identity card of George Ebbans (son of George and Sarah Ann)
I’m a little confused by his address being listed as 35 Farringdon Street as his son lists it as an address on his National Registration Identity Card (c1945 – 1951) which leads me to believe it was actually the family address. George mentions lodgings – presumably at a different address away from the family and therefore NOT Farringdon Street? Sarah (and I presume her 2 children – names currently redacted) are living on nearby Blue Lane in the 1939 register so this is unclear.
We may never know what really happened to George – the Ebbans name has been written in error and transcribed in so many different ways that it’s possible he’s hiding in the records under some alternative spelling I’ve yet to come across. But I’ll keep my fingers crossed…
UPDATE:
Sarah Ann has been identified as the woman on the far left of the picture (by her daughter/granddaughter)
More details of George and Sarah Ann’s relationship have been shared via the podcast
