How awkward can you be!

[MUMMYG]

There are two strange occurrences  in this family I would like your opinion on please.

The first is, why would two people get married in a Liverpool church when they lived 20 miles away and lived in that same for the next 60 years.  All details on the marriage cert are present and correct

Would I be right in thinking that it could be because the lady had a child aged 2 born out of wedlock and didnt want the neighbours to know it?  I think this baby is my ancestor although I cant find an official birth cert, only a parish one 

The second is, why would they baptise their following child in two different churches 6 miles apart and three months apart?

Actually here is another anomaly, how can you prove that a Nancy and Ann are one and the same person?

On all birth records  she is Nancy, on the marriage she is Nancy and in all the censuses she is Ann ? ?

[andycand]

Hi

Was the Liverpool church St Nicholas? I recall reading that there were churches that were less particular about people meeting residential requirements or when people preferred not to marry in their local area. St Nicholas in Liverpool was, I believe, one of them, and Manchester Cathedral another.

Andy

[carol8353]

In Scotland Nancy/Nan and Ann (and even Agnes sometimes) are all interchangeable,they probably are in England too 

I have ancestors who married at St Nicholas Liverpool in 1852- he came from Macclesfield in Cheshire. I have no idea why he was in Liverpool either.

Carol

[behindthefrogs]

It was fashionable in the middle of the 19th century to get married in a nice city church away from the local population.  You will find many families that could afford it doing this.  If the marriage was by licence no residential qualification was necessary.  However in many cases the participants used what was known as "a suitcase address" where they just left a suitcase for the necessary three weeks or so and never actually stayed there.  Residence is only necessary for the three weeks it takes to call the banns.

[chris_49]

My great grandparents married in Liverpool though they always lived in New Brighton. The certificate has them living at two different addresses in Liverpool that they cannot have lived in for any serious amount of time. Neither address exists nowadays.

The reason was that my grandmother had just been born in New Brighton. They married, then were able to register her birth under their married names.

This wasn't the only inaccuracy on the cert. They both claimed to be "of full age" which neither of them were, and my great grandfather put his grandfather's name where his father's should have been, because he was illegitimate (as was his bride I believe - no marriage found, but she knew who her father was.)

The five untruths on this cert, and another three on my grandparents'  (on the other side) marriage cert (mother put in the father's name box - illegitimacy again - wrong christian name for bride, unexpected surname) make me wonder - if the only two certs I know the facts for (the latter found by my mother after her mother's death, so no doubts) are so inaccurate, can I really rely on the info on other, older ones where the cert is all I have?

See various Rootschat threads, passim

Chris

[andrewalston]

St Nicholas appears to have been used when there was something "iffy" involved.

I have one chap who married his dead wife's sister, which was officially illegal and would certainly have been frowned upon closer to home.

I assume that being able to show people back home a marriage certificate from the big city would convince them that everything was legitimate.

In my lot the practice seems to start after Civil Registration. Prior to that the people who used Liverpool had some connection to the city.

[MUMMYG]

Thanks for you replies all.

The church was St John in Liverpool in 1841 after Banns and they both state they live in Knight Street, is there any way of finding them there? thing is the marriage was before the census so they can be found tucked up in married bliss back home in the 1841 one along with child. He is only a labourer though. Any suggestions ?


Someone suggested that her legal name may have been Nancy (her baptism record says Nancy also) but as she preferred to be called Ann, this is what she filled in on the census. Sounds feasible to me.


What about the other query, why two baptisms different churches, both parish churches no change of denomination just one was the main district parish church and the second one was the village where they actually lived?

[Gone.]

Interesting to read the post from MummyG.  Here is a strong echo ...

One of my ancestors married in a church a few miles from her home. At the time her marriage, she already had two children by the man she had been living with for many years. After the marriage they continued to lived in the same home for many years. 

I agree with MummyG that this kind of arrangement may well have been to keep it hidden from the neighbours.

As for first names, the wife was Sarah Ellen, or Ellen, or Sarah or depending on which document you read!

[vikiF]

Hi

I also had a Nancy/Ann dilemma that drove me batty for months.

At least yours is consistent.  With mine some of the children are bapised with a mother's name of Nancy and some with a mother called Ann. William marries a Nancy but most of the census records show him with Ann. It really was most confusing and I was convinced for a while that William was leading a double life with two families........ By the end however, the evidence was stacking up so much that it became clear that Nancy/Ann were the same person with Nancy as her 'proper' name but likely preferring to be called Ann.

Quite why the same vicar in their own parish church would use the two interchangably I have yet to figure out. Rather think they were not overly regular church goers!

Viki