Marriage in Latin - 'Banns omitted'

[goldie61]

A marriage between Henry Hurst of Poynton, and KAtherine Hyde alias Ward in 1629.

I have it translated.
It starts with 'letters of dispensation', and further on says 'Banns having been omitted'.
Any ideas why that would be?
Would he had to have had a licence?
Are 'letters of dispensation' the same thing?
I can't find an actual application for a licence.

Just a bit of a puzzle.
Thanks

[Bookbox]

At this date, in the Anglican Church (as reinforced by the 1604 Canons), marriage had to be either after the reading of banns or by licence. ‘Letters of dispensation’ is simply the term used in the Act Book to show that ‘licence’ (= permission) had been granted to the clergy to perform a marriage without banns.

It’s possible that the other bits of paper (allegation, bond, and the actual licence) haven’t survived, and that this entry in the Act Book is now the only record. But you could check that with the appropriate record office.

The reasons for marrying by licence include speed, convenience, spouses residing in different parishes, a desire to uphold social status etc. (there will be plenty of RC threads on this). Marriage by licence was more common at these early dates than in later centuries.

[goldie61]

Many thanks Bookbox.
I did wonder if 'letters of dispensation' was the same as 'licence'.
I have lots of licences for other people, some very helpful.

I can't prove it (yet), but I think this one may have been because he was a widower.

[BrittaniaW]

I noticed that you referred to the 1629 marriage of Henry Hurst and Katherine Hyde alias Ward.  I’m also interested in that marriage as I am fairly certain that I am descended from their son, Hamnet, and wondered if you are interested in sharing information.  Thanks

[goldie61]

Hi Britannia and welcome to Rootschat! 

I have been looking again at this side of my family tree.
It gets pretty complicated as you go back from Henry Hurst and Katherine Hyde alias Ward.
Was she born 'Hyde' or 'Ward"?
As no doubt you have found, there are several baptisms in the 1580s and 1590s at Stockport for children 'Hyde alias Ward', all children of Thomas WARD of Northbury (which is just a couple of miles from Poynton where the Hursts and Hydes were) - all just north of Stockport.
One of these is Hamnet Hyde alias Warde, baptised 30 Dec 1585. He died 13th March 1613 and left a will. Have you seen it? It is on findmypast. Even then he is 'Hyde alias Ward', so it seems as if they spent all their lives being known as this. Why?! It was more usual then than now to see 'alias' names - not necessarily anything dodgy about it as we might presume. I wonder if they used it as a sort of double barrelled thing. Have you found a marriage for Thomas Ward? His wife was Ann (from his will), and I have toyed with the idea she was Ann Hyde, although I cannot find the marriage.

Have you seen the Visitations of Cheshire - one in 1580 and one in 1613, which can be seen on-line.
The Hydes were certainly a high class family around Poynton. Thomas Ward is  mentioned at the start of the 1580 visitation as a 'gentleman', but he has no genealogy inside. I understand you had to pay for the privilege of being included in the visitation - it wasn't automatic or compulsory -  perhaps he couldn't be bothered or didn't want to pay!
The Hyde tree has an Anne born in a time period, brother 'Hamon', (Hamond' in 1613), that would fit as the wife of Thomas Ward, but there is no information next to her name in the visitations (no doubt an unimportant female .....!!)

As for Henry Hurst, I think the marriage to Katherine Hyde was his second marriage.
Have you seen his will of 1651? it's on Ancestry.
He says he is 'growne into old age'. I have seen hundreds of wills, and perhaps 2 that say that, so it would seem he was exceptionally old for the time.
There is a marriage for a Henry Hurst 4 Oct 1603 at Poynton to a Margaret Broumbell. Then a burial for Margaret Hurst, husband Henry at Poynton 5 Aug 1621. This would fit nicely with his remarriage to Katherine Hyde in 1629.
If this is him, that would make him born possibly about 1575/1580, so in his late 70s by the time he died.

Do you have any further information?
Cheers

[BrittaniaW]

Hello Goldie

Thanks very much for your reply and particularly for the reference to Henry Hurst’s will, which I have now got from Ancestry!  Do you have Katharine’s will from 1664 – it is on Findmypast.  I assume you have Ann Hyde alias Ward’s will from 1628 (FindMyPast).  I do have Hamnet’s will from 1613.  Did Thomas have a will?

Unfortunately I haven’t found Thomas’ and Ann’s marriage or Katherine’s baptism, which is a little strange, as I think I have found the rest of the family.  I have the following baptisms for Hyde alias Ward or Ward alias Hyde, father Thomas:
•   Anne baptised 1588 Stockport, married Raphe Bagshawe 1616 Stockport
•   Ellen baptised 1590 Stockport, probably buried 1597 Stockport
•   Elizabeth baptised 1594

Also, there are burials for Thomas Ward son of Thomas in 1585 Stockport, Thomas Ward in 1597 Stockport and an infant of Hamnett Wards of Northburie in 1613.  Hamnet Hyde married Jane Lowe 1612.  John Coughen (mentioned in Hamnet’s will) married Ales Hyde 1594 Stockport.

Also, I found the following marriages for Hyde alias Ward that might be siblings of Thomas:
•   Ales married 1575 Poynton Lawrens Bradleye
•   John married 1592 Adlington Anne Potte

I have seen some of the pedigrees for the Hyde family.  What I don’t understand is why both Ann and Hamnet did not refer to Hamnet Hyde (born 1563 or 1565 and apparently died May 1643) as being related to them in their wills if he was.  My experience with wills indicates relationships were usually shown (even if they were distant).  If Ales and John are siblings of Thomas, my thoughts are that the “alias” must go back to their parents, rather than relate to Thomas and Ann.

I haven’t read Henry Hurst’s will properly yet, but does he refer to children from a previous marriage?  Henry, Katharine, Ann and Hamnet are certainly Katharine’s children, based on her will, and there should be an Ellin, too.

I have only started looking at this part of my tree in detail in the last few weeks (and found you when “googling”), but it is certainly interesting!  Thanks again 

[goldie61]

Yes I've seen most of this - too many pieces of the jigsaw, and too difficult to put them all together into a coherent whole!
There is no doubt there was a close connection between the Hydes and the Hursts (And the Wards). In a small community at that time, it would seem they were of a similar standing, although I think the Hydes must have been the more high status family. They certainly intermarried.

I see looking back at the notes I made over a year ago, I decided Ann the wife of Thomas Ward was not Ann Hyde son of Robert. This Ann Hyde married Ri(chard?) Risley, gent, 11th Sept 1593 at Stockport. The entry actually says she was the 'daughter of Robert Hyde of Northburie esquire'.
So bang goes that theory!

You say "Henry, Katharine, Ann and Hamnet are certainly Katharine’s children, based on her will, and there should be an Ellin, too.", but I can't see that she mentions 'my son Henry' anywhere in it.
Katherine (daughter) is married to (John) Lamb + 5 children; Ann is married to William Williamson: Hamnet is executor (wife not mentioned); and Ellin is married to (John) Stanley. Henry's children Henry and Mary are mentioned as her grandchildren, but Henry not mentioned as her son as far as I can see.  I wonder why he was not executor, as 'eldest son', instead of Hamnet. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.
Henry is classed as 'my eldest son' in Henry's will of 1651. Doesn't say who his mother was though. Both 'Hamnitt' and Ann are not yet 17 years old and Henry his son has not yet got any children.

I think you're right that the 'Hyde alias Ward' comes from a previous generation somewhere.
There is a document at the Court of Star Chamber at National Archives.
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3163529
Robert Hyde versus Thomas 'Hide' alias Ward and others re Forgery of a feoffment of a house and land at Northbury.
The date of it is actually 1579. It is many pages long, but mentions these children of 'Thomas Hyde alias Ward' as to whom property should be left - 'John Ward his sonne' (by this stage, some pages down, Thomas Ward (alias Hyde) the father is now referred to as just Thomas Ward); 'Thomas Ward another sonne'; Alice Ward daughter; and Ann Ward another daughter. Then interestingly, if there is no issue from any of these children, to 'Hamnet Hyde sonne and heyre apparent of Robert Hyde Northbury Esquyer'.
It is pretty tricky to transcribe and the images I have are not wonderful, plus the terminology make it somewhat difficult to understand.
Initially I thought this was our Thomas Ward, but now I think this Thomas must be the FATHER of Thomas married Ann, and grandfather to Katherine, Hamnet etc born in the 1580s and 1590s.
Here is proof of siblings Alice and John of the marriages at Poynton and Adlington.

So it is THIS Thomas who starts the 'Hyde alias Ward'?

By the way, if you haven't come across the National Archives Discovery website you should look at it. A treasure trove of goodies.
You'll spend hours finding exciting documents etc! well, the short precis for them at least.

Always another avenue to follow in family history! 

 

[BrittaniaW]

Hello Goldie

The reason I think Katharine’s will shows that Henry is her son is that she refers to grandchildren Henry and Mary Hurst and I don’t think Hamnet married until 1667 whereas Henry married in 1658/9.  I am assuming (!) therefore that they must be Henry’s children (unless she had another son).  Also, although Henry’s will (1670) is water damaged, I think his oldest son was probably Henry – his name certainly starts with “H” anyway!

Thanks for the National Archives reference.  I will have to wait until I am feeling rich to get the documents as the National Archives charges just to give you a quote!  (I live in Australia.)  I have looked at the catalogue a lot though and downloaded wills.

I forgot to mention previously that I have looked at Joseph Hyde alias Ward’s will (1693) – very interesting.  Also, perhaps the reason that we can’t find Thomas’ and Ann’s marriage is that the Stockport registers don’t start until March 1584.

Last question – which of Henry’s and Katharine’s children are you descended from?

Thanks again

[goldie61]

And I live in New Zealand!
How much did NAt Archives want to copy it? Luckily I got somebody to photograph the document - though as I said, it's pretty tricky to make out. It is just the indictment - the actual final decision is in some other series of documents somewhere - yet to find out where. There will have been a copyright form signed so I can't really send you the whole document, but it's like it says - Thomas Hide alias Ward is charged with creating a fake feoffment -  so he could make money out of leasing it. Sounds like a shady sort of character! He may have been completely exonerated of course!

I've seen the will of Joseph Hyde alias Ward 1693 - as you say, very interesting. Even more pieces of an unfathomable jigsaw, and about 100 years later on!
We have to remember the term 'cousin' was a very loose term in those days - not necessarily the close relative we would think of now. It does suggest the two families were still pretty close though - perhaps Thomas was forgiven his misdemeanour with the fake feoffment!

My ancestor was the Henry son of Henry and, (possibly), Katherine Hyde. He married Anne Worthington 15th Feb 1658 at Wilmslow. His will of 1670 (of Poynton), gives his 'brother in law' as Hugh Worthington. I haven't been able to find his baptism. There's a chance his mother may not have been Katherine Hyde I suppose -  he may have been the son of Margaret Brombell, as Henry didn't marry Katherine Hyde until 1629, but he may not have been .................
This Henry had daughters Katherine and Mary, so is it safe to say his mother WAS KAtherine?
Katherine, Henry's daughter, married Richard Broster 4 Dec 1705 at Bollington. They had amongst their children, a Katherine and a Hamnet.......

Keep in touch - let me know if you find out any more, or have a brainwave about this complicated bunch!