On a Marriage License it states both are from this parish. What does that mean?
In a marriage license it states that both husband and wife are from the St George Hanover Square Parish. Does this mean that they actually live in that parish. I thought St George Hanover Square was a popular wedding destination so they might have actually lived in another parish like St Sepulchre of Holborn.
Risposte
-
@Suetis Suetis
.
Are you referring to "Marriage Banns"; or, an actual "Licence"?
.
And, what time period?
.
IF, you are referring to "Marriage Banns"; THEN, as far as I was aware, if the "Marriage Banns" state/indicate that the either or both the intended Bride and Groom were "... of this parish ...", then they were in fact 'parishioners' of that particular Parish.
.
I have seen "Marriage Banns" that state/indicate that both the intended Bride and Groom were "... of this parish ..."; and, I have also seen "Marriage Banns" that state/indicate one is "... of this parish ..."; whereas, the other is from another particular Parish.
.
I have seen "Marriage Banns" from two (x2) separate and distinct Parishes, BOTH, with the EXACT same details of the SAME intended Bride and Groom (except: for the particular Parish from whichever one was from).
.
In other words, two (x2) records for the same "Marriage Banns", from each Parish where the Bride and Groom were from.
.
Luckily, the actual "Marriage" occurred at one of those Parishes; but, BOTH, "Marriage Banns" were later UPDATED (ie. notated) with the actual 'Date' and 'Place' (ie. Parish) where the marriage took place.
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
.
0 -
the husband paid a bond and was then issued a license. No Banns 1760’s
0 -
@Suetis Suetis
.
That is a different 'kettle of fish' ...
.
I am out ...
.
But, I suspect that; IF, it states that BOTH are from "That" (ie. "this") Parish; THEN, I would suggest they ARE both 'parishioners' of that particular Parish.
.
[ Whereas; as to, how LONG ... that may be another matter ... ]
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0 -
Hello SUETIS before 1837 marriages could take place without banns but needed a licence issued by the bishop or archdeacon or his surrogate, a number of indexes of such licences have been printed by various local record societies and by the British Record Society. There were a number of parish priests who were quite happy to marry a couple without banns or licence(for a fee) and many areas such as the Fleet prison there were members of the clergy who were quite happy to marry people on demand. As a consequence of this Lord Hardwickes act of 1754 sought to end the scandal of clandestine marriages and it laid down that no marriage could be performed except by a clergyman of the Church of England
It could be that the parish you mentioned wa a *Peculiar* which did not fall under the jurisdiction of the bishop or archdeacon, usually derived from the possession of land by a church dignitary lying within the diocese of another bishop.
Have you got the details of the bond as they give information of the applicant. From what I have mentioned above it is possible that the couple did not reside in he same parish. Are there any baptisms to the couple in this parish as normally baptisms took place in the wifes parish.
If you have any other issues please reply and I will try to help you
Stuart B
0 -
St George, Hanover Square was a fashionable and popular place to be married. As far as whether the couple lived in the parish, it only took a few weeks if living in the parish to be "of" the parish. Are you talking about a marriage license or the marriage record? A license required a financial bond and the person who paid for the bond was unlikely to lie about residence as they could have to forfeit the money if it was found that they had not been truthful.
0 -
Theoretically, "canon law [church law] specified that marriages should be celebrated in the parish where at least one of the parties was resident" (Rebecca Probert, "Marriage Law for Genealogists", chapter 6). Thus, describing someone as "of this parish" was intended to convey that they were indeed resident there, because that was the nominal requirement for at least one of the parties.
Now whether or not that is actually the case is another matter to which only research of the specific case can be the answer. It's certainly a "well known fact" that both parties might be described as "of this parish" when only one was - the reason being to save the trouble of having banns read in both parishes.
Equally, research of cases might suggest that neither party was actually resident in the parish - but reasons for this might vary from wanting to hide the marriage from relatives to it simply being the church where the family had always got married.
The question of how long you had to be resident in a parish to be regarded as "of this parish" is also moot. I just tried to find if there was a minimum time of residence but currently can't find one quoted. (The term "sojourner" was apparently used for someone who'd been living in a parish for a while but not long enough to qualify to be described as OTP). So a temporary residence lodging somewhere might be regarded by the parties as being enough.
0 -
I don't think that the bond would be forfeit if untruths were told about residences. Rebecca Probert's "Marriage Law for Genealogists" states that the residence requirements were "directory rather than mandatory, and a marriage would be valid even if it was celebrated in a parish to which the couple had no link whatsoever." Bonds were forfeit (i.e. the parties would actually need to stump up the money) only if the marriage were not valid - and residence issues wouldn't invalidate the marriage.
0 -
Good point, Rebecca Probert's book is a great resource. It is interesting to try to find the exact residence of Londoners, in particular.
0 -
Please note that St. George Hanover Square parish could indeed refer to the church in Chelsea that was popular for marriages as it was used by members of the Aristocracy BUT could also refer to the workhouse under the same name and parish as I found out with a number of generations of my own family.
0
