"of this parish" - rock solid, or moveable feast?

[bugbear]

I have excellent data (full original baptism registers) of a family in Shoreditch.

The 9 children, from Mary in 1806 to Henry in 1822 are all born to Thomas and Charlotte Cole, are Baptised in St Leonards Shoreditch, and (lovely to find), I even get a street address and occupation; the street adresses vary a little with time, but are tightly bunched (or at least, they're rightly bunched when you find a map old enough to show them...)

Further, I have a really good looking family for Thomas' birth, in the same area.

A quick search for a Thomas Cole/Charlotte wedding "a bit prior" prior to 1806 throws up a rather lovely top hit, on a wedding with a Charlotte Howard in 1805, held at St John of Jerusalem, Hackney.

But I'm not quite so confident of the identity of Charlotte. The couple appear in several online trees (on Ac**try), but the two candidates for Charlotte both present "issues".

There's one born Shoreditch, to Francis and Mary (Howard) in 1789. She looks OK (if a little young at 16), but the wedding in Saint John of Jerusalem, Hackney, lists both bride and groom as "of this parish".

The other candidate is born to Francis and Ann (Howard), over in Smithfield, baptised in St Bart the Great. At least she'd be 18 at the wedding, but she also fails the "of this parish" test.

For the 1789 Charlotte, I simply cannot see why the wedding wouldn't be at St Leonards, Shoreditch. Both partners were born in Shoreditch, and both were Baptised there; St John at Hackney makes no sense.

And it's no better for our 1787 candidate - if Thomas is Shoreditch, and Charlotte is Smithfield (well to the West of Shoreditch), why the *** would the wedding be in Hackney, to the East of Shoreditch?!

So I then start to doubt that the wedding is "right" despite appearing to be a genealogists dream.

Can anyone see a way through?

   BugBear

[behindthefrogs]

Perhaps it was a prettier church away from the prying eyes of their neighbours.  People chose their churches to be married in then in the same way as they chose their places of marriage today.  It was easy enough to establish a "suitcase" place of residence so that the banns could be called.

[janan]

If Charlotte was under 21 her parents may have disapproved so they chose to marry elsewhere? My great great grandmother appears to have done this when she married age 15 in 1842 claiming to be of full age. Both bride and groom were said to be of this parish although as far as I can tell had no connection with it.

Jan

[Ruskie]

I am researching a couple of families in a similar area around the same time.

This doesn't help with your dilemma but I've found that my families use a number of churches as well.

Being 'of this parish' only means that they have lived in the parish for three weeks I think. Often bride and groom live in the same parish while the banns are called to avoid paying for banns to be read in two parishes. So, not really an indication of Charlotte's parish of birth.

There could be any number of reasons why the couple married in Hackney - being under age is the first that comes to mind.

[KGarrad]

I did the same for both of my marriages!!

"Moved house" temporarily, so that I was in a suitable Registration District/Parish.

[iluleah]

OTP indicates the parish where the person was living for the 3 weeks prior to the marriage and hence where his or her banns were read. The abbreviation "OTP" meaning "of this parish" is used when the person was living in the parish where the marriage took place.
However an OTP entry is not always to be trusted. If the bride and groom lived in different parishes, the law required that banns were read at both churches. Since a fee was charged for reading banns, this doubled the cost. So many prospective grooms would notionally be lodging in the bride's parish, (e.g. by leaving a suitcase of clothes at a friendly neighbour's house) for the period prior to the wedding. Hence the groom would be OTP and only one set of banns would be read, which is why you will often find banns read in a parish and no wedding took place as they married in the other parish.

So OTP doesn't indicate any more than 'a connection' ( such as a suitcase left in someone house) for 3 weeks prior to marriage for either bride/groom, so a clue, not a fact and unfortunately with so many spurious online trees where the people  have not researched the real records themselves and/or cited anything many just see banns read and put it as the marriage without looking for the actual marriage

[bugbear]

OTP indicates the parish where the person was living for the 3 weeks prior to the marriage and hence where his or her banns were read. The abbreviation "OTP" meaning "of this parish" is used when the person was living in the parish where the marriage took place.
However an OTP entry is not always to be trusted. If the bride and groom lived in different parishes, the law required that banns were read at both churches. Since a fee was charged for reading banns, this doubled the cost. So many prospective grooms would notionally be lodging in the bride's parish, (e.g. by leaving a suitcase of clothes at a friendly neighbour's house) for the period prior to the wedding. Hence the groom would be OTP and only one set of banns would be read, which is why you will often find banns read in a parish and no wedding took place as they married in the other parish.

So OTP doesn't indicate any more than 'a connection' ( such as a suitcase left in someone house) for 3 weeks prior to marriage for either bride/groom, so a clue, not a fact and unfortunately with so many spurious online trees where the people  have not researched the real records themselves and/or cited anything many just see banns read and put it as the marriage without looking for the actual marriage

Yes - my concern in this particular case is that BOTH bride and groom appear to be "suitcase jobs".

 BugBear

[iluleah]

Yes that is very possible.........

[janan]

OTP indicates the parish where the person was living for the 3 weeks prior to the marriage and hence where his or her banns were read. The abbreviation "OTP" meaning "of this parish" is used when the person was living in the parish where the marriage took place.
However an OTP entry is not always to be trusted. If the bride and groom lived in different parishes, the law required that banns were read at both churches. Since a fee was charged for reading banns, this doubled the cost. So many prospective grooms would notionally be lodging in the bride's parish, (e.g. by leaving a suitcase of clothes at a friendly neighbour's house) for the period prior to the wedding. Hence the groom would be OTP and only one set of banns would be read, which is why you will often find banns read in a parish and no wedding took place as they married in the other parish.

So OTP doesn't indicate any more than 'a connection' ( such as a suitcase left in someone house) for 3 weeks prior to marriage for either bride/groom, so a clue, not a fact and unfortunately with so many spurious online trees where the people  have not researched the real records themselves and/or cited anything many just see banns read and put it as the marriage without looking for the actual marriage

Yes - my concern in this particular case is that BOTH bride and groom appear to be "suitcase jobs".

 BugBear

Probably, as has been suggested, because, for whatever reason, they wanted to marry in a parish where they weren't known 

Jan