Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - melba_schmelba

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 184
19
The Common Room / Re: Marriage licences, why they were obtained, and their cost
« on: Thursday 15 February 24 11:50 GMT (UK)  »
Couple of interesting Victorian books on the subject of marriage, and licences, although noting both would be aimed at the middle-upper class reader:

'Etiquette: what to do, and how to do it' by Lady Constance Eleanora C. Howard · 1885

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Etiquette_what_to_do_and_how_to_do_it/m4gIAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=fees%20%22vicar%20general%22%20marriage%20licences&pg=PA278&printsec=frontcover

"People are either married by 'banns', or by 'licence', whichever they please; it is often decided by the fact of the engaged couple holding 'High Church' views or otherwise.
  The latter prefer 'banns', so that as many marriages are now celebrated by 'banns' as by 'licence'. I think, however, as a rule, people in good society prefer a marriage by licence.
...
The fees for a special marriage licence, stamp, etc., average twenty nine pounds three shillings.
  They are granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury (after application at the Faculty Office, Doctor's Commons, through a Proctor), under special circumstances, to marry in a particular church, without previous residence in the district, by the reasons assigned must be such as to meet his Grace's approval.
   Marriage licences can be obtained in London by application at the Faculty Office, at the Vicar-General's Office, and at the Bishop of London's Registry, all in Doctor's Commons, between ten and four, by one of the parties about to be married.
  Licences procured at the Faculty Office or Vicar-General's Office, are available for London or the country."


And from 'The Etiquette of Courtship and Matrimony: with a Complete Guide to the Forms of a Wedding' 1852

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Etiquette_of_Courtship_and_Matrimony/P8hYAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=fees&pg=PA53&printsec=frontcover

"The special licence is about twenty eight or thirty guineas - whereas that of an ordinary licence is but two guineas and a half; or three guineas where the gentleman and lady are minors"

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Etiquette_of_Courtship_and_Matrimony/P8hYAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=fees&pg=PA51&printsec=frontcover

"the fees for marriage by banns range from eleven shillings and sixpence to thirteen shillings and sixpence and fifteen shillings and sixpence, according to the parish or district where the marriage might take place"

I think there may be some confusion about what a special licence is in the first book - as far as I understand it from the second's description, a special licence was very unusual and allowed people to marry at any church by any Bishop, Vicar etc. whereas I think most ordinary licences specified one or sometimes two churches.



20
The Common Room / Marriage licences, why they were obtained, and their cost
« on: Thursday 15 February 24 11:09 GMT (UK)  »
I have often wondered why ancestors married by licence, when presumably there was some not insignificant cost involved, compared to the banns process which was presumably free, although the church wedding would presumably have its own modest charges but perhaps more costly in wedding and brides' dresses, wedding reception etc. I have also wondered what the actual cost would be - this article below gives one example, a Faculty Office special licence (quite unusual as opposed to ordinary licences, see second post) in January, 1915 for a corporal rushing home to marry his pregnant fiancé was £29 5s 6d (although lucky for him he only had to pay £5, the rest was covered by the War Office and stamp duty waived)

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/first-world-war/home-front-stories/love-and-war/

This page below goes into various reasons why a marriage might have occurred by licence apart from pregnancy, one or both of the parties going abroad, men carrying off unwitting young heiresses, a desire for confidentiality, perhaps due to perceived opposition from family members to the marriage. Or a desire to marry in a place where it would not be usual to marry, a chapel or an Inns of Court, or a parish in which neither couple were living (not stated there, but reasons I have seen discussed for that are not wanting to marry in their local church due to local or familial opposition, or simply because it was more exciting and a big occasion to marry in a 'posh' city church, than your local one):

https://sogdata.org.uk/bin/aps_browse_sources.php?mode=browse_dataset&s_id=359&id=390

A pilot study of a 25 year period was done on the Vicar General licences from 1726-50, this found:

"three quarters of the applicants lived in the City of London or in neighbouring parishes, both north and south of the Thames - that is, the Greater London of the day. A further 20% lived in the adjacent Home Counties and only 5% further afield. About a quarter of the applicants were either widows or widowers, but only a comparatively small number (1% of the males and 8% of the females) admitted to being under 21. Nearly half (42%) of the applicants lived in the same parish as each other and only 15% lived in different dioceses. "

21
The Lighter Side / Re: The worst Ancestry transcription ever?
« on: Thursday 15 February 24 10:48 GMT (UK)  »
I've just had a quick browse of those Banns.

People seemed to be in a great rush to marry, and the clergymen seemed to be in a rush to get them to the altar. I notice one marriage at 2:15 on March 30th and the next listed at 2:30 the same day.

Was it the influence of wartime, or were they all worried about being transported back to the reign of George II ?   ;D ;D
Interesting couple of things about this:

a 1944 American government pamphlet, I assume intended for officers rather than the ranks:

EM 30: Can War Marriages Be Made to Work? G.I. Roundtable Series
https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-30-can-war-marriages-be-made-to-work-(1944)

Some interesting points i.e. sometimes the motive may be financial (on both sides) i.e. a married woman will receive income and a pension if her husband dies, much more than would be given to an unmarried dependent and children by her. Sometimes it may be due to warning other men off, 'securing' a relationship, sometimes fraud was involved and there were cases where a woman took two soldiers income at once :o.

And the later inevitable cost of the rush
https://qz.com/1314011/the-unromantic-untold-story-of-the-great-us-divorce-spree-of-1946

And a National Archives page on a marriage between a corporal racing back from the front to marry his pregnant fiancé , and having to obtain a Faculty Office special licence, which was very expensive £29 5s 6d at the time, although he only paid £5 and the rest paid by the War Office (£5 stamp duty waived)

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/first-world-war/home-front-stories/love-and-war/

22
The Common Room / Re: Can an 'aunt' be a great-aunt in the 18th century?
« on: Monday 12 February 24 12:55 GMT (UK)  »
I don't think people were always so specific about relationships in those days. Cousin could mean nephew/niece or something more distant. So yes, I am sure people also said aunt when we would specifically talk about a great aunt.

23
The Common Room / Re: Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices' Indentures 1710-1811
« on: Monday 12 February 24 11:26 GMT (UK)  »
That page seems a bit unusual Jon, it is possibly some sort of clerical error? The date on the left I think is the date the duty was paid. The date on the right is when the apprenticeship began i.e. when the indenture was signed and sealed. They also seem to count how many there were on one particular day, but sometimes it seems for the month also. I think they had different areas that dealt with apprenticeships in different parts of the country, so you get multiple pages with July 8 1719 on.

24
The Common Room / Re: Surnames
« on: Monday 12 February 24 10:40 GMT (UK)  »
Although a person had married was it quite common for that person to have her death registration under her maiden name?
helina
In England, no. In Scottish, French and Italian records (at least up to the 19th century) it was the norm.

25
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: 500 4th cousins
« on: Sunday 11 February 24 23:07 GMT (UK)  »
I've got  a vague recollection that something like this was discussed a few years back. Was it decided that it depended upon how many matches that were from USA  :-\

I have a few lines who went over to US or Canada and I think you do also, aghadowey?

Gadget


Add - this might be the thread:

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=858940.0
Yes well remembered gadget  :D. I can update the thread somewhat from other data I have had access to. People who come from a limited genepool i.e. people from small religious or island communities have even more than the average American who we thought were basically the larger figure so 2000+ 4th cousins or closer can be common in those cases.

26
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: "The Gift"
« on: Sunday 11 February 24 23:02 GMT (UK)  »
There was a bonus episode released just a few days ago on the 23andme 'hack' or data mining perhaps more accurately and the anti-semitic aspect of it. 23andme still has the shared match feature disabled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001w6z0

27
The Common Room / Re: Mothers maiden name as surname.
« on: Saturday 10 February 24 11:16 GMT (UK)  »
I used to think this was a modern thing. Well, with middle names I think it is, probably starting from the late 18th century. But surnames as a first name went back to the 1600s at least and was probably used to remind people of a connection to another, perhaps more prestigious family than the surnamed family, or made somewhat in the knowledge of a wealthy bachelor uncle, perhaps who was the godfather that the parents hoped their child would inherit from ::) :). But sometimes when that did happen, people actually changed their whole surname as a condition of inheriting an estate, especially if that family line or the surname as a whole was dying out.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 184