The words "first marriage" were used, without the word "widow". And the father here was clearly not husband #1.
It didn't take long to google this topic and discover she is a divorcee.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=371201&in_page_id=1797&in_a_source=
"It will cost £3,700 to transport Bernadette's body, and any money left over will go to helping her three other children, Nanam, 11, Mika, seven, and five-year-old Miko, whose Japanese father was divorced from Bernadette."
"For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously." (Malachi 2.16)
You might try googling some more and find out if the woman obtained an annulment within the Catholic church. The first husband may have been an adulterer, etc.
But that wasn't actually my point. I was talking about the article and what was in the article, not what could be ferreted out by googling. My point was that it was many people's natural inclination to jump to conclusions that put the woman in the worst possible light, in spite of lack of evidence to support it (within the article).
We have become such a pessimissitic society.
Totally irrelevant, but I applaud the author of that quote for writing "whose father" instead of "who's father." A small thing, but so rare these days ...
Bizarre. You've probed this woman's heart and judged her unrepentant?
Rhymes with "Farrah-See"