RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Corryn on Tuesday 07 April 20 11:35 BST (UK)
-
Hi All,
Can anyone explain why a couple should marry after registrars banns? They were both from the area, so why not just get the banns read out in church?
Also the vicar made a point of entering in the register that the bride was "born out of wedlock" under Fathers Name and Surname. All others I have seen have just had a line drawn where no fathers name is written.
This marriage took place in the district church Lawley, Shropshire, May 15 1880
Corryn
-
Having looked at various registers in the past I do not like some of the comments written, in my opinion there was no need to write "born out of wedlock" perhaps the bride offered that information herself.
doesn't help you but I wanted to make a point
Louisa Maud
-
Louisa Maud
My thoughts exactly.
Corryn
-
There is no such thing as "Registrars Banns". Banns are only a Church of England ceremony, he probably means a Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate.
After 1st July 1837, Marriages in England and Wales could be by:
1) Banns
2) Surrogate’s or Common Licence
3) Special Licence
4) Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate
5) Superintendent Registrar’s Licence
Under (1) (2) and (3) marriages may be solemnized by a Clergyman of the Established Church of England in a licensed Church or Chapel of the Church of England, or, if by Special Licence, in any place and at any time.
Under (4) they may, as in cases (1) and (2), be solemnized by a Clergyman of the Established Church of England subject to his being willing to accept the Certificate in lieu of Banns; and under (4) and (5) by or before a Registrar of Marriages in a building of Roman Catholic or other denomination duly registered by the Registrar-General; before a Registrar of Marriages and a Superintendent Registrar in the District Register Office; or after the 1898 Act .(Marriage; Nonconformist Places of Worship), before a person duly authorised under the Act. Under this Act Roman Catholics and Nonconformists were not required to have a civil Registrar present.
Stan
-
Were they of the Catholic religion?
Often the word b*****d is used for a child born out of wedlock and I also think it is most unkind
A relative of my sister in law , he a widow married his sister in law about 1900, they lived in a village and went to London to get married, when their first child was born it was shown on the baptism record that it was an unlawful marriage, why they went to London I really do not know as it was a small village and would have been found out at sometime, once again the vicar had no need to do that
Louisa Maud
-
Louisa Maud
They were CoE.
Most of the family married in the Parish Church (All Saints Wellington).
I wonder if they tried to keep their marriage quiet.
Stan
Four years later, in the same register, it does say "Superintendent Registrar's Certificate" for a couple of marriages. This is the only one I can see that says "Registrars Banns" so as you say probably an error by the vicar.
Corryn
-
I have seen one Scottish baptism register entry in which the Minister said the child was born out of fornication, he did not seem happy with the situation. It did not seem to bother the child in his later life apart from the fact he appears on records sometimes with his mother's maiden name and sometimes with his step-father's surname, and sometimes with both.
-
Corryn,
This might just be the answer!
When Alfred married Emma Peake in 1880 perhaps he was marrying someone from his mothers family. His mother was Eliza Peake. She married Alfred's father sometime before 1856. Perhaps the family were not happy about the marriage.
Fisherman
ADDED
Alfred's father John married Eliza Sept. Q 1856.
So Alfred was, as my mother would have said, under the bouquet!!
-
Fisherman,
Thanks for the information.
I will try and find a link between Eliza and Emma.
Corryn
-
Often the word b*****d is used for a child born out of wedlock and I also think it is most unkind.
I suspect you may think that because the word is now a strong expletive or accusation - and probably has been for decades. It has been used in registers for centuries as a statement of fact, in baptism records possibly to show that a child may not be entitled to support from that parish. Nowadays that might also be seen as 'unkind', but as usual we should not judge past events by today's values.
-
Andrew,
Yes I'e seen b*****d, Illegitimate and base born on baptism records but was wondering why the vicar needed to note the fact on her marriage entry 23 years later.
Corryn
-
I have 2 relations who insist on using that word everytime they hear of a baby born to unmarried couples, I must admit I do tell them off, in no way am I confrontational but it isn't nice, I get told to look in the dictionary but I still feel it is an unfortunate word to use, it is not the child's fault and certainly it need not have been shown on the marriage cert
Louisa Maud
-
Also the vicar made a point of entering in the register that the bride was "born out of wedlock" under Fathers Name and Surname. All others I have seen have just had a line drawn where no fathers name is written.
This marriage took place in the district church Lawley, Shropshire, May 15 1880
Corryn
The Vicar was completely out of order writing this in the column "Father's Name and Surname", and I would be surprised if the Registrar allowed it when the quarterly copy certificate was sent to him. It would be interesting to get the certified copy from the GRO to see if it was still entered.
Stan
-
Of course he may have just written it in the Church Register and not on the "Registered Copy" he sent to the Registrar.
Stan
-
Stan, if it wasn't on the " registered copy" why should he have written it at all?, but we are talking about some time ago.
Louisa Maud
-
"Out of wedlock" recorded in lieu of the name of the father of bride or groom on a parish register in England in 1880 ... yes, likely the Vicar was over-reaching protocol even within his own church admin. However, I cannot see that today's family history buffs must immediately decide that that clergyman's words were recorded on his register with the purpose to cause scorn or other adverse comment readily available to the general public to injure the couple being married. ***
BUT from a family history perspective it is actually a very positive and vital piece of information, likely based on a verbal response to the clergy's standard question "who is thy father". It helps validate the 21st century quest to become informed about nineteenth century ancestors.
I hope that Corryn, who from his profile is currently just 22, continues to pursue family history studies for there will be many times that confronting facts will need to be examined in context.
Stan, as always, has everything at hand, and I support his thoughts on checking what is actually on the civil registration.
Andrew is spot on too, values change, the intent and meanings of words change.
ADD
*** I am in New South Wales, Australia. Church records here are not automatically public records. Over time, various church records have been filmed and made available to the general public, with permission of the denominations head offices.
JM
-
Of course he may have just written it in the Church Register and not on the "Registered Copy" he sent to the Registrar.
But if the data on these certs is 'informant-led' it follows either that one of the parties volunteered the information, or the cleric knew from long ago and wished the fact not to get overlooked ? And of course these days a good proportion of children are born 'out of wedlock', which often comes later.
A member of my tree was baptised in Manchester 'cathedral' in 1848 with no father recorded, but he was acknowledged when she married there 25 years later. In fact he was lodging with her husband while cohabiting with her mother, who he never married. No clerical comments on the certificate though.
-
:)
JM
-
I have seen one Scottish baptism register entry in which the Minister said the child was born out of fornication, he did not seem happy with the situation. It did not seem to bother the child in his later life apart from the fact he appears on records sometimes with his mother's maiden name and sometimes with his step-father's surname, and sometimes with both.
Years ago, I couldn't find a marriage record and jumped for joy when I found my ancestor's name in the national archives ..... as having "fornicated" on one particular date and married on the next day. Wat would now be called a "shotgun" wedding.
-
None of the old fashioned words upset me, for one thing they give a clue where the words originated (which country, Norse, Germanic, etc) and set out very clearly, either what occupation or what action took place at any given point in time.
My take on this word is that its meaning is as old as the days when Jesus walked the earth and we know that meanings of words do change over time. The King James I bible, written hundreds of years ago translated words that had originally been written in Hebrew, many centuries prior to the translation and this is what the word meant:-
(Leviticus 18:6-20; 20:10-21). He and his descendants to the tenth generation are excluded from the assembly of the Lord.
Presumably at one time the Church of England precluded children born out of wedlock from their congregations too. As the Parish church was the place to apply for poor relief it was one threat hanging over young people's heads that they needed to be chaste or their offspring wouldn't be able to access everything in the parish that their neighbours could access.
-
There is no such thing as "Registrars Banns". Banns are only a Church of England ceremony, he probably means a Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate.
After 1st July 1837, Marriages in England and Wales could be by:
1) Banns
2) Surrogate’s or Common Licence
3) Special Licence
4) Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate
5) Superintendent Registrar’s Licence
Under (1) (2) and (3) marriages may be solemnized by a Clergyman of the Established Church of England in a licensed Church or Chapel of the Church of England, or, if by Special Licence, in any place and at any time.
Under (4) they may, as in cases (1) and (2), be solemnized by a Clergyman of the Established Church of England subject to his being willing to accept the Certificate in lieu of Banns; and under (4) and (5) by or before a Registrar of Marriages in a building of Roman Catholic or other denomination duly registered by the Registrar-General; before a Registrar of Marriages and a Superintendent Registrar in the District Register Office; or after the 1898 Act .(Marriage; Nonconformist Places of Worship), before a person duly authorised under the Act. Under this Act Roman Catholics and Nonconformists were not required to have a civil Registrar present.
Stan
Hello Stan
I hope you are well Stan and all keeping safe.
A wonderful reply, but your first sentence is misleading.
Before the new civil England & Wales Marriage Act and Amendments came into effect from 1837, the Banns were effectively a Published Notice at church of an intention to marry usually at Church.
Amendment 1 Vict., c. 22
This allowed for the Notice of the Intention to Marry also to be made at the Registrar's Office (besides church). There is a reference in 1840 to a marriage and the Act of 1 Vict., c. 22 "to substitute the Superintendent Registrar's certificate for banns" ...
Notice of a Marriage with the Registrar became known as "Registrar's Banns".
The Marriage Certificate is clearly stating who were responsible for dealing with the Notice to Marry (Church or Registry Office Banns).
Best wishes, Mark
-
Additional attachment to above reply, Mark
-
I can still remember my husband cringing dreadfully when we went to book our wedding, on being asked for his fathers name, he had to say he didn’t know. This was in 1984.
The lady didn’t seem too bothered about that, but then he also had to admit he’d been brought up in the Catholic faith - sharp intake of breath and urgent phone call made to the church secretary
-
Hi all,
I've discovered that this is a cousin marriage.
Emma was the illegitimate daughter of Alfred's mother's sister, so first cousins!! Also Emma was 6 months pregnant. Perhaps that's why they married away from their church and by Registrars Banns.
Corryn
-
"Notice of a Marriage with the Registrar became known as "Registrar's Banns".
They might have been commonly called that but legally and by the various Acts of Parliament they are not.
Banns have specific legal meaning: Proclamation or public notice given in the parish church of an intended marriage, in order that those who know of any impediment thereto may have opportunity of lodging objections.
In the Register Office the civil equivalent of Banns involves notice of the marriage being given to the superintendent registrar of the district where each party had resided for the previous seven days There is a marriage notice book where the details are entered and are available for public inspection.
Thomas Rass? apparently decided not to use the correct term, which would be married by "registrar's certificate" as it is on all the certificates I have seen.
Stan
-
Just to add that in over twenty years doing family history I have never before come across the term "registrar's banns"
Stan
-
Neither have I, unnecessary in my opinion,
Louisa Maud
-
Just to add that in over twenty years doing family history I have never before come across the term "registrar's banns"
Stan
Me neither Stan. Bryan and I married in a Registrar's beautifully decorated room, which we booked March 1994 for the earliest date, because being in HM Forces he was being posted abroad. The earliest date was the following September of that year and in all that time nobody mentioned anything about banns.
-
Thomas Rass? apparently decided ...
Definitely Ragg, by comparison with other words, and a commoner surname I think.
-
Notice of a Marriage with the Registrar became known as "Registrar's Banns".
I can't see anything in any of the lengthy attachments to your post which include the words 'Registrar's Banns' :-\
-
Just a thought - the marriage entry - was it taken from the parish register, or from the marriage certificate?
My reason for asking this question - if the image was taken from the parish register, then was this a "one off" or were there other entries stating "Registrar's Banns" at about the same time? In other words - was this the usual manner of entry by this particular cleric?
-
BumbleB,
The image (1880) is from the register.
There is one other entry (1875) where he entered Registrars Banns but on that occasion crossed it out and put Superintendent Registrars Certificate.
Other later entries have Superintendent Registrars Certificate.
I've also noted he never missed a chance of putting "born out of wedlock" where he can!
Corryn
-
Perhaps no comment related to the Minister :-X
-
BumbleB,
The image (1880) is from the register.
There is one other entry (1875) where he entered Registrars Banns but on that occasion crossed it out and put Superintendent Registrars Certificate.
Other later entries have Superintendent Registrars Certificate.
I've also noted he never missed a chance of putting "born out of wedlock" where he can!
Corryn
During my lifetime. I believe if the parents married within three years of the baby being born, then the baby was legally the child of the mother's husband. (work that out lol)
-
BumbleB,
The image (1880) is from the register.
There is one other entry (1875) where he entered Registrars Banns but on that occasion crossed it out and put Superintendent Registrars Certificate.
Other later entries have Superintendent Registrars Certificate.
I've also noted he never missed a chance of putting "born out of wedlock" where he can!
Corryn
During my lifetime. I believe if the parents married within three years of the baby being born, then the baby was legally the child of the mother's husband. (work that out lol)
What jurisdiction? My youngest siblings were born 15 years after my parents married. I was born in 1947, my parents were married back in the 1930s... WWII separates my older siblings from the rest of us.
JM
-
BumbleB,
The image (1880) is from the register.
There is one other entry (1875) where he entered Registrars Banns but on that occasion crossed it out and put Superintendent Registrars Certificate.
Other later entries have Superintendent Registrars Certificate.
I've also noted he never missed a chance of putting "born out of wedlock" where he can!
Corryn
During my lifetime. I believe if the parents married within three years of the baby being born, then the baby was legally the child of the mother's husband. (work that out lol)
What jurisdiction? My youngest siblings were born 15 years after my parents married. I was born in 1947, my parents were married back in the 1930s... WWII separates my older siblings from the rest of us.
JM
I probably made a mistake when I stated "my lifetime". The occasion was early 1960s and my brother asked legal advice about his child who had been born out of wedlock when parents were under 21 years of age because parental consent for the parents to marry wasn't given. He thought he would have to officially adopt his own child when they married, but the advice he was given was that IF they (the parents) had married after the child was 3 years old, he would have to officially adopt his own child. At time of marriage (one day after father's 21st birthday) child wasn't two years old.
-
Thanks,
Was your brother's experience 1960s, in England? and it was legal advice? so not a religious interpretation....
Here is a live link to a newspaper cutting from the colonies from 1833 and a discussion about Legitimacy and Marriage with comments about English statute laws from the mid 1700s
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/232475594
The Australia-Asiatic Review Tues 17 Sept 1833.
It commences with
We have been favored with a communication from a valued correspondent, on the subject of legitimacy of children born in these Colonies before the passing of the Acts of Parliament subjecting them to the laws of England, as they stood in the statute book ..... We have devoted some time and research to this important question, and the following will be found, we believe to be the state of the law thereupon.....
the reporter concludes that
'Every child, therefore, born of parents cohabiting as husband and wife, previous to the bringing into operation the Charter of Justice in 1821, is, we firmly believe, strictly and legally ligitimate, to the fullest extent of the word; .....
.....
I think the adverse views towards children born outside of a formal marriage between their parents is actually something that developed during the mid to late nineteenth century, at least in the Australian colonies.
JM
-
Thanks,
Was your brother's experience 1960s, in England? and it was legal advice? so not a religious interpretation....
JM
Yes it was legal advice. The couple were not co-habitating and wanted to marry prior to the baby's birth, parents advised they wait in case they married in haste and repented at leisure type of thing.
They married in a Registry office with a large number of the families to witness the ceremony. Bride's mother very upset because the room needed a coat of paint, looked like a storeroom and was a mess, plus the female Registrar rushed through the ceremony at quite a pace.
-
Thank you all for your help and input.
I have come to the conclusion that the vicar wrote "Registrars Banns" in error as he had five years previously but on this occasion failed to correct it.
With regards to him entering "born out of wedlock" I have noted that he has done this on a few occasions throughout the register, perhaps his way of showing disapproval.
Why they married away from their Parish Church, I can only guess the reasons were Emma was six months pregnant and because they were cousins, though legal, the families didn't approve.
Thanks again
Corryn
-
BumbleB,
The image (1880) is from the register.
There is one other entry (1875) where he entered Registrars Banns but on that occasion crossed it out and put Superintendent Registrars Certificate.
Other later entries have Superintendent Registrars Certificate.
Corryn
I'm sure someone who worked for my Father (marrying at a Kingdom Hall, so definitely not marrying in a C of E Church) said he had been back to the Registry Office (before the Marriage) to see his 'Banns' as he called them displayed on the Registrar's Notice Board. (c.1970).
Added
It was my belief that the Marriage Notice for several weeks in the Registry Office was the Civil equivalent to the Banns being read 3 times in a church.
They still put them on display in Northern Ireland (gov.uk link) where 28 days Notice is also required.
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/how-and-when-give-notice-marriage
"Your marriage notice will be placed on public display at the registrar's office."
Mark
-
They might have been commonly called "banns" but legally and by the various Acts of Parliament they are not.
In the Register Office the civil equivalent of Banns involves notice of the marriage being given to the superintendent registrar of the district where each party had resided for not less than seven days
From a Notice furnished by the Registrar-General
A copy of such notice will be entered by the superintendent-registrar in a book called “the marriage notice-book,” which will be open at all reasonable times, without fee, to all persons desirous of inspecting the same.
The whole purpose of Banns in Church, and the Marriage Book in the Register Office was to give time for any objections to the marriage to be raised.
Stan