In the UK at least, and probably other places, you cannot even begin to apply for an annulment until you have a civil divorce fully completed.  So even a rushed job would be 2.5 to 3 years.  18 months for the divorce and another 18 ish for the annulment.

But I agree with Matthew above, the USUAL driver is a new girlfriend waiting in the wings.  I am struggling to think of any Trad or practicing Catholic  with an annulment that had it all done and dusted before they met dated and married their future wife.  I am thinking of Conchita Gonzalez (Garabandal) and her husband Patrick Keena.  Would have to to check dates and relative ages.

This is kinda understandable though given the time pressure.  Leave it too long and why bother at all?

If my wife died now I wouldn't even think of getting married again.  Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.  I'd keep the nanny and just focus on my job and educating the children.  There is a 20 year window, after which, what is the point?

I always wondered that.

Most of them are only concerned about getting an annulment and getting re-married to their sweetheart (who they almost ALWAYS have as they seek an annulment -- just like out in the World with divorces!)
Few get divorced until they have the next one lined up. Same with annulments among Trads, it would seem. That is a bad sign.
Next bad sign: they don't seem very concerned that they were essentially "shacking up" for years or decades. They forget that an annulment means a marriage never took place. They don't even give lip service to this reality, much less take it to heart. I could be wrong, but they don't seem very broken up about it. They don't even mention or realize that all their children have been declared bastards.

In every practical way, these Catholics -- even Trads -- treat annulments like the Catholic version of divorce.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

You're exactly right about this behavior pattern.  Some of them even keep referring to their "ex-wife" or "ex-husband".  There was one guy who had got an annulment in an Eastern Rite church.  He was married to this woman for 20 years.  They had several children.  Both were outwardly dedicated Catholics.  Wife worked in a Novus Ordo parish office, and he went to Mass often.  So, in the Eastern Rite, before the actual marriage vows, both of the prospective marriage partners declare that they had never been vowed to another before.  When asked by the priest, this guy, in attempting again to marry, hesitated, and the priest had to coach him to say that, no, he had never been vowed to another ... even though he clearly had taken marriage vows before.  Now both are getting remarried.

In the external forum, I treat him as if he were legitimately married ... since I defer to the judgment of the Church, and it's now between him and God.  But I know darn well ... and so does he ... that he's now living in sin.  So it'll be between him and God on his judgment day.  He'd probably protest, "but, but, but ... the Church said I was never married" ... and God's response will likely be "and you know that wasn't the truth."  Only God knows.  Maybe such as these are free from mortal sin though the principle of probabilism.  God knows.  I can't judge in the external forum because I don't know all the facts of the case.  There COULD in fact be something to it.  Perhaps one of them had been previously married, and now that initial spouse had died and so they're free to remarry.  Not sure.

But I think that in the external forum we have to treat them as if they're legitimately married and not living in sin.  So, for instance, if I were a priest I would not refuse them Holy Communion.  But I might admonish them in private to really search their conscience.

This is one of the many disasters wrought upon souls by the Novus Ordo establishment.

I was taught this is not the case, if the couple truly thought themselves to be really and truly married at the time of the birth of their children.

"If the couple truly thought themselves to be really and truly married at the time of the birth of their children" then in all probability they were really and truly married, and so would not justly be applying for annulment. I know a couple who were already grandparents, where the woman, after over 30 years of marriage, applied for annulment, thus declaring all her 8 children bastards. No shame!

"If the couple truly thought themselves to be really and truly married at the time of the birth of their children" then in all probability they were really and truly married, and so would not justly be applying for annulment. I know a couple who were already grandparents, where the woman, after over 30 years of marriage, applied for annulment, thus declaring all her 8 children bastards. No shame!

See this always baffles me. What the literal hell was that woman after? What is she hoping to achieve? Another shot at life and a new romance/family with a young 20 year old romeo? Another go at life, maybe this time a career in this or that? GIVE IT UP, you're in your 50's, just sit back and enjoy the ride. You will never be close to anyone like your husband you've spent the last several decades with. Live out the SHORT remainder of your life with your children and grandchildren already, and get ready for the next life for crying out loud! Death isn't that far away (I say this as a man in his early 40's).

It reminds me of the 40th martyr who was lying on the ice and "snapped" and denied Our Lord, and when he received his reward (a bath of enticing, hot water), the shock killed him. He must have gone straight to hell. What a horrible story for this man. (The other 39 earned a glorious martyrdom -- plus one of the nearby soldiers was inspired by this display, and confessed Christ, took his place naked on the frozen pond, and became the 40th martyr)

I mean, there are some times when it's just too late. Live out your destiny already. Sometimes trying to backtrack is actually more trouble than just going forward to the end!

It's even easier for Trads.  Many of us have been married at independent/SSPX/etc., chapels.  Getting an annulment from the Conciliar Church is child's play.  The diocesan marriage tribunal simply looks at the circuмstances, notes that according to the code of canon law no marriage ever took place due to a lack of jurisdiction, and rubber stamps it.  I know of a couple with 6+ kids who, after a few years, got tired of each other, left the chapel and got an annulment in record time.  He moved off somewhere else while she found another guy, got married at the indult, and lived "happily ever after."  

They knew exactly what they were doing when they got married to begin with.  The trad priest even explained the concept of supplied jurisdiction in great detail.  Their subsequent pursuit of an annulment wasn't because they had an epiphany and realized they were never married because the trad priest lacked jurisdiction.  Otherwise, why not simply go to the indult parish and get the marriage blessed/taken care of?  They wanted to "move on", and this was the path of least resistance.  

As Ladislaus said above:
"most of these people know in their heart of hearts that their marriage were not really null, and so they'll likely be judged on that before God."

"If the couple truly thought themselves to be really and truly married at the time of the birth of their children" then in all probability they were really and truly married, and so would not justly be applying for annulment. I know a couple who were already grandparents, where the woman, after over 30 years of marriage, applied for annulment, thus declaring all her 8 children bastards. No shame!

Children of annulled marriages aren't considered bastards. 

Stubborn made sure to downvote this and yet has completely failed to address it. Hypocrite.

I did not down vote you, fyi.

Since you are confused, I will try to explain:

As I said, it is very simple, it is important to keep this fact in perspective when you consider this subject. In this world, calling him a heretic is not a false accusation because he repeatedly proves it to be true.  

In this world, we Catholics are all of our superiors' good subjects but God's first, it doesn't matter who our superior is.

In this case, Catholics remain the pope's good subject, but God's first.

It is a very simple and fundamental Catholic principle exemplified by the last words of St. Thomas More when he said; "I die the King's good servant, but God's first". Nothing complicated about this.

The consequences of the sedes rejecting the pope as pope is obvious in that they reject being the pope's good subjects, but God's first. In rejecting the pope as pope, the sedes are rejecting the simple and fundamental Catholic principle exemplified by those last words of St. Thomas More.

Not sure how this could be confusing, seems like it should be self evident.