RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Yorkshire (West Riding) => Topic started by: BushInn1746 on Friday 17 November 17 22:35 GMT (UK)
-
Because of the unexplained delay between the Marriage Allegation & Bond 16th May 1815 and the Wedding by Licence about two months later and George Hood's identity being unconfirmed, we decided to have another further image taken.
Originally the Marriage Allegation appeared to say Parish of[?] y and if the words do say "Parish of" then I don't see room for Selby and I am not sure if I see Selby anyway?
Afterward, it says "Parish Church of Selby"
I wondered what you make please of the original word (partly erased) overwritten by the word "Church", and if it was another possible place, or chapel name?
Mark
-
It looks to me like Selby, then rewritten because they had missed out Church of before the Selby.
-
I agree, I think the original says Parish of Selby. The lower curve of the S of Selby starts in the middle of where the 'u' now is in Church.
-
Thanks
That letter that starts in the 'u' of church, I see that as an l (a small L), going at an angle up to the top of the next letter.
Bear in mind it was not a marriage by banns (published 3 Sundays in church) and not a rush wedding either (about two months delay between Allegation and the Marriage Day) and he was buried by the Quakers as "Not in Membership". Also when George Hood applied in 1836 to become a Quaker I discovered in the Quaker Minutes he was refused Membership, as not quite ready.
Mark
-
I agree with Jebber and Jomot (above) that the words of Selby have simply been overwritten with the word Church, as follows:
of is under the Ch
S is between the u and the r
e is under the r
l is under the c
b is under the ascender of the h
y is inside the final hook of the h.
I wouldn't read anything particular into the delay -- the licence would have been valid for 3 months from date of issue.
-
Thank you Bookbox and all.
Mark
-
.
-
Thank you dobfarm very much for all the enhancements, I can see more of what was hidden.
What might simply be:-
a) a straight forward error,
b) is also making me question if George Hood felt he had an exemption from marrying in the Church,
but the Church decided no before the marriage and changed it.
To me, in the 1836 Report in those York Quaker Minutes regarding his Application to become a member, the Quakers appear very guarded about what they say about George Hood.
Then when it comes to Jane Hood (nee Casson) being booted out and a Certificate of Denial being issued against Jane Hood for marrying William Hood (like they are doing with others marrying outside their Meeting), Jane Hood held the marriage relation to be of a religious nature ... her intended husband's religious views were known to her as being in unison with those held by Friends.
The Quakers eventually decide We do not feel called upon to take further proceedings
William Hood wasn't a Quaker, but Jane Hood is the only one who seems to be getting special treatment, in marrying a non-Quaker.
The others who marry Non Quaker Members are effectively being disowned (excommunicated).
Mark
-
What might simply be:-
a) a straight forward error,
b) is also making me question if George Hood felt he had an exemption from marrying in the Church,
but the Church decided no before the marriage and changed it.
To me, in the 1836 Report in those York Quaker Minutes regarding his Application to become a member, the Quakers appear very guarded about what they say about George Hood.
As you no doubt know, at this date the only groups who were exempt from marrying in a C of E church were Quakers and Jews. If George Hood felt he was exempt from diocesan jurisdiction, he would not have been applying to the diocese for a licence in the first place. The diocese was not involved with Quaker marriages – licences were issued only for C of E clergy to perform marriages within the Church.
As regards the alteration to the text as posted above, my money would undoubtedly be on (a), a straightforward error.
-
I'm not that up on reasons around 1815, why couples married by License or had to declare their intent by bond/allegation or if there was a time limit to marry after the bond was issued, but deeper research into why they could not marry by Banns or needed a License may provide ideas for you Mark to further investigate. Just a thought ! ???
George born in a parish out of county or diocese maybe a reason
Illegitimate orphan who may have close links to intended by surname or inlaw. Example -Known/ unknown father may be open to have connections to the intendeds family if from a small community village of a parish like godfather to intended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impediment_(canon_law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banns_of_marriage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Marriage_Allegations,_Bonds_and_Licences_in_England_and_Wales
In modern times, my brother C of E and wife Catholic married in a register office, both of their own beliefs but not church goers after their civil marriage. Their daughter, my niece married her husband in her own fathers C of E parish/dioceses of Wakefield and husband from a Leeds parish/ dioceses of Ripon with Leeds (Ripon in North Yorkshire but Leeds in West Yorkshire but both were North riding), so they applied for an Archbisop of Canterbury special licence to marry in a Huddersfield Parish of West Yorkshire dioceses of Wakefield (was West riding)
-
Thank you Bookbox and dobfarm
I am trying to look at every snippet of information I do have for my ancestor, for any clue.
--------
In the 200 + year old Quaker Minutes, when a Quaker made known his intention to marry at the Quaker Meeting, the Quakers still notified the Parish, quite what form that took, if every time and what paperwork was involved is unclear.
But the word overwritten by Church does appear to say Selby.
Mark
-
when a Quaker made known his intention to marry at the Quaker Meeting, the Quakers still notified the Parish, quite what form that took, if every time and what paperwork was involved is unclear.
With respect, ‘Notifying the Parish’ is a very long way from what is happening in this document.
He is appearing in person before a lawfully appointed official of the Diocese to make an Allegation under oath, secured by a Bond for a substantial amount of money, with the sole purpose of obtaining a licence to marry in an Anglican church.
-
when a Quaker made known his intention to marry at the Quaker Meeting, the Quakers still notified the Parish, quite what form that took, if every time and what paperwork was involved is unclear.
With respect, ‘Notifying the Parish’ is a very long way from what is happening in this document.
He is appearing in person before a lawfully appointed official of the Diocese to make an Allegation under oath, secured by a Bond for a substantial amount of money, with the sole purpose of obtaining a licence to marry in an Anglican church.
Hello Bookbox
Thanks, I have both the Allegation and his Marriage Bond and I agree £200 was a substantial amount of money back then, to offer as a Bond. We have looked at Chester Newby, Bondsman born Whitley Kellington, a Miller of Selby and his family, all are fairly local to the Selby - Goole area.
I have seen the Marriage of a Staffordshire man, he has gone to Liverpool and after a short time there, married by Banns at Liverpool.
My George rents premises at Selby for 3 years before 1815, he could of had his Marriage published 3 Sundays in a row and Married by Banns, (his intended Wife was Baptised at Selby).
This perhaps suggests my "George Hood of Selby" was Nonconformist, as he didn't marry in a hurry either.
Mark
-
Been reading Harwicke's Marriage Act 1753
Basically the Act required everyone to marry in the Parish Church or its Parish Chapel under the Parish Church.
Scotland, the Royal Family, Jews, Quakers and "Marriages solemnized beyond the Seas" were Exempt from the Act.
If someone wanted to choose a place and time of their convenience they needed a Special Licence from Archbishop of Canterbury.
For all others ...
You either:-
1. Published Banns Three Sundays in a row before the Marriage (the Act stipulates where no Sunday Service what must be done) and Banns would be published in both places of residence and if no Chapel in Extraparochial place they would also be published in the adjoining Church or Chapel to that place as well. Seven days notice of both your addresses was required before the first publication of the Banns.
Or
2. had a Licence and one of the persons marrying by Licence must have lived in their place of abode 4 weeks immediately before the granting of a Licence.
There were rules for people under 21 regarding consent and Minors, those having Guardians and those with no Guardian requiring the Court of Chancery to appoint one.
---------
Those marrying with a Licence must have been either marrying in haste, or not prepared to go through the Banns process, or Nonconformist.
Mark
-
Its a faint possibility - But I have reservations
Just been looking at the u to r in church not exactly a clean over corrected word the church word
Maybe Ulley that's over worded.
Ulley is in Yorkshire South West of Doncaster -South East of Rotherham-Due East of Sheffield.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Ulley,+Sheffield/@53.3919309,-1.2792643,12.8z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x487975f586eb7b47:0xd36b7e6146e9b9ac!8m2!3d53.3827338!4d-1.3011165
-
Its a faint possibility - But I have reservations
Just been looking at the u to r in church not exactly a clean over corrected word the church word
Maybe Ulley that's crossed out.
Ulley is in Yorkshire South West of Doncaster -South East of Rotherham-Due East of Sheffield.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Ulley,+Sheffield/@53.3919309,-1.2792643,12.8z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x487975f586eb7b47:0xd36b7e6146e9b9ac!8m2!3d53.3827338!4d-1.3011165
Hello dobfarm
Thanks, I'm ordering a Colour High Resolution Photograph of the words "Church of" just to double check. The word "of" looks like it is heavier too.
I have explained I am trying to check/confirm the original word/s underneath "Church of "
Mark
-
They way the writer wrote dithery Selby - the mistake must have scared the heck out of him
-
They way the writer wrote dithery Selby - the mistake must have scared the heck out of him
Hello dobfarm
Or it was another writer who changed it.
Mark
-
Hello
Because, my George Hood's 1815 Marriage Allegation has been altered and seemingly "Church" added, I am wondering if my ancestor felt he was exempt to begin with, from marrying in the Parish Church?
There must once have been a file, or Diocese records informing someone in the C of E at some level, that Marriages exempt under Hardwicke's Marriage Act, were about to take place at venues, outside of the Parish Church.
I have asked if such records still survive.
Mark
-
Hello
Seems the Methodists could legally perform marriages from 1795, so there were Marriages outside the Anglican / Church of England (besides those exempt) and therefore my previous comments misleading.
"The Methodist Church was first officially recognised in 1795 and authorised to perform marriages and other sacraments."
I am also led to believe that clandestine and irregular marriages before 1795 were occurring. I suppose a Nonconformist minister or a Catholic priest is not always likely to keep a record of himself breaking the Law.
At Selby it was claimed that they never kept any records of their 18th Century Wesleyan Chapel activies. Selby Chapel opened later 1785, no early records found yet.
Methodist Members by Circuit name.
By:-
1781 Bradford 1,074 members.
1782 Sheffield 512 members.
1784 Scarborough 598 members.
1787 York 920 members.
1788 Macclesfield 1,208 members.
1790 Grimsby 625 members.
1792 Leeds 2,119 members.
1796 Barnard Castle 458 members.
1796 Ripon 589 members.
1801 Keighley 871 members.
1801 Sheffield now increased to 1,061 members.
1813 Halifax 1,420 members.
By the mid 19th Century they had lost tens of 1,000s of members.
I expect Nonconformism (or no records) are the reasons behind brickwall ancestors, or those who had left their Parish church.
Mark
Been reading Harwicke's Marriage Act 1753
Basically the Act required everyone to marry in the Parish Church or its Parish Chapel under the Parish Church.
Scotland, the Royal Family, Jews, Quakers and "Marriages solemnized beyond the Seas" were Exempt from the Act.
If someone wanted to choose a place and time of their convenience they needed a Special Licence from Archbishop of Canterbury.
For all others ...
You either:-
1. Published Banns Three Sundays in a row before the Marriage (the Act stipulates where no Sunday Service what must be done) and Banns would be published in both places of residence and if no Chapel in Extraparochial place they would also be published in the adjoining Church or Chapel to that place as well. Seven days notice of both your addresses was required before the first publication of the Banns.
Or
2. had a Licence and one of the persons marrying by Licence must have lived in their place of abode 4 weeks immediately before the granting of a Licence.
There were rules for people under 21 regarding consent and Minors, those having Guardians and those with no Guardian requiring the Court of Chancery to appoint one.
---------
Those marrying with a Licence must have been either marrying in haste, or not prepared to go through the Banns process, or Nonconformist.
Mark