RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Northumberland => Topic started by: Dinkydidy on Monday 26 February 18 23:54 GMT (UK)
-
I may just be unlucky, but am wondering if there was a historical reason for dates not being included in a marriage register in 1768 - 1769. I have been looking at the digitised record on Family search, and the register for that time is, of course, all handwritten, with the banns dates and marriages all in chronological order within the one register.
I was after the marriage of James Storey and Sarah Robson in 1768. It's there, but like several others within about a year, simply says "were married in Felton Church by legal publication of banns in the year one thousand seven hundred & sixty eight by me W. Henderson, Vicar" then a statement about solemnization and witnesses. Not even banns dates!
The last recorded date is 22nd May 1768, then five marriages with the above statement, then he goes back to dating from one on the 18th May 1769. William Henderson was the vicar right through for many years, and there are no missing pages.
It seems odd that the period is a year almost to the day. ???
Didy
-
The records available via Family Search are usually copies of the Bishops Transcripts, not the original registers.
Each year the priest had to make a copy of the registers and send them up to the Diocese. The transcripts were supposed to be sent within one month of Easter.
So I should think it's possible that for the year in question William Henderson decided that for some reason he wouldn't copy up the precise date, simply the year.
-
Many are the original registers, and in this case you can see the actual volumes and covers. The catalog entry generally states when they are Bishop's Transcripts.
The thing is, he changes details halfway down a page, and back again overleaf.
-
I am struggling to find anything online via Family Search except the Bishops Transcripts :-\
-
I've just looked at the transcripts, which at that time were patchy & incomplete. For 1768 there is only a list of burials.
To access the register images you need Search>Catalog, then enter the place only and click Search.
From the results, click on Church records. The resulting list includes the CofE BTs, but the Parish Registers are at the end of the list.
-
The annoying thing is that I haven't yet found a way to effectively fast forward through hundreds of images. I scroll down and check the visible dark covers to see where I'm up to. Then, when you're close, you can do multiple clicks.
1768 marriages are at image 258/9 of 689.
-
Thanks for your interest Jen, but it's nearly pumpkin time here in South Australia, and I have to go to bed.
-
I've just looked at the transcripts, which at that time were patchy & incomplete. For 1768 there is only a list of burials.
To access the register images you need Search>Catalog, then enter the place only and click Search.
From the results, click on Church records. The resulting list includes the CofE BTs, but the Parish Registers are at the end of the list.
Yes, I've done that, but the item you mention is locked and I'm unable to view it.
-
I've just looked at the transcripts, which at that time were patchy & incomplete. For 1768 there is only a list of burials.
To access the register images you need Search>Catalog, then enter the place only and click Search.
From the results, click on Church records. The resulting list includes the CofE BTs, but the Parish Registers are at the end of the list.
I followed these instructions and got this list
Bapatisms 1812-1838
Baptisms 1838-1865
Baptisms, burials 1766-1799
Baptisms, burials 1799-1812
Baptisms, marriages, burials 1653-1717
Baptisms, marriages, burials 1717-1727
Baptisms, marriages, burials 1727-1749
Baptisms, marriages, burials 1745-1766
Burials 1813-1841
Marriages 1813-1837
Marriages, banns 1754-1827
the last line where the 1768 marriage may be has 93 pages not 689 as you mention elsewhere. But anyway they are not viewable online you have to meet one of these conditions
To view these images you must do one of the following:
Sign in to Familysearch.org as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Access the site at a family history center.
Access the site at a FamilySearch affiliate library.
All a bit of a puzzle
-
Sorry to have put you to so much trouble Jen & David, but now I'm puzzled as well. I am an LDS church member, and I still get the locked message on many films when trying to view them at home. There must be different restrictions imposed by different copyright holders in various areas.
Obviously, I have been able to access the Felton one at home, but the contents are as per the attached snip, including dates, not including them, and back to including them, just for that year.
-
My transcript of the Felton record done by HM Wood which usually reliable and taken from the parish record does not record dates either so my guess is that they were not written in the record. There are asterisks on my transcript but I haven't found the statement telling me why yet. My guess is that the register was damaged where the date was? There are witnesses to those marriages whose dates are missing. Your witnesses were John Wood and Ann Collingwood and the marriage was by banns.
Janis
-
Thanks Janis. Sorry for the late reply, but I have been without access for a most of the last week.
Didy
-
Just to satisfy my curiosity I looked at the microfilm of the PRs today and they are exactly as posted in reply 9 above.
No dates but equally no damage to the records to account for that. Who knows what the reverend was thinking of but it's the first time I've come across this.
-
Me too. I thought it was strange that the period in question was almost exactly twelve months, so only affected the five or so marriages in that period. Not exactly a huge, very big parish, so shouldn't have been overworked. He wasn't keeping separate banns and marriage registers, and had been including all the relevant details in previous (and later) years. Maybe he was having a little personal protest about something - maybe they weren't paying him enough!