How awkward can you be!

[LizzieW]

I presume "ordinary" people married at St Nicholas too.  A few of my husband's ancestors married there and none of them already had children, or previous marriages or were underage. 

His g.grandmother married at Manchester Cathedral aged 15 in 1867, although she told the authorities at the time that she was older.  That was the only time she hid her age, all the census and her death certificate match her birth date.

Lizzie

[behindthefrogs]

When both parties gave the same address in the 19th century this was usually an indication that this was a temporary address being used for the purpose of them both only having a single set of banns called in the parish where they intended to marry.

There were of course many cases where people permanently living at the same place marryied but usually other evidence supports that situation.

[suey]

When both parties gave the same address in the 19th century this was usually an indication that this was a temporary address being used for the purpose of them both only having a single set of banns called in the parish where they intended to marry.

There were of course many cases where people permanently living at the same place marryied but usually other evidence supports that situation.

The majority of my husbands London ancestors give the same address, making it look as though they were living together before the marriage took place.  I believe it was done to save money, two sets of banns read in two parishes meant two sets of fees.

 

[MUMMYG]

Thanks to everyone for their interesting input, I think Ive talked myself  into it, just wish I had other evidence to back me up though, dont you sometimes wish you could go wake them up and say Oy! what the heck?

[Rena]

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

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

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

.
Generally we don't know where anyone lived prior to the 1841 census, although we might have an inkling of where they were born.  What we don't have is a continuous record of where they worked or who they worked for.   Traditionally all we know is that the pair usually married in the bride's parish church (or they could have chosen the main diocese church which would explain Liverpool), their first child would probably be born in her mother's house;  which explains the anomaly of why that child's baptism is in a different parish than any following baptisms.  The subsequent following" baptisms (if there are any) being in the parish where the husband works.  If an estate farm worker is involved then we'd have to consider the couple moving about depending on the seasons
.
I've also got marriages in the nearest Yorkshire diocese cathedral but currently haven't come across any baptisms - why would you take a small baby further than the parish church?

[sharmar]

I had a similar problem with a Nancy, everyone knew her as Nancy but never listed as that on any census', but I had a Annie (on census's that was the same age) that I couldn't trace either until I read a book of names and found that Nancy is a pet form of Ann/Anne/Annie.  So my Nancy and Annie were one of the same.

[MUMMYG]

I think the first child, illegitimate, was baptised in the main town of St Helens but Nancy was born and lived in the township of  Billinge, and so did her husband.
The marriage was in Liverpool but the next child was baptised the very next year in both St Helens and Billinge ? which was the nearest church to where they lived, Moss Bank, and there they lived for the next 50 years until death.
Liverpool is a strange place to be married if you came from the area they  came from, highly unusual I would say. They were born in 1805 and 1817 so they weren't too young to be married although there may have been an objection I suppose and thats why they did it out of the area. No idea why the two baptisements for the same child though.

Sharmar

I am supposing thats what has happened here, although in reverse, her legal name was Nancy as that is what she is baptised but she preferred the more grown up name of Ann, or maybe it was to hide her identity somewhat because the on first childs baptism she gave her true name.

[Rena]

The marriage was in Liverpool but the next child was baptised the very next year in both St Helens and Billinge ?  No idea why the two baptisements for the same child though.

.
Could one of the records be a Bishop's Transcript"?   e.g. the parish vicar made a record of the baptism/wedding in his books and also sent a record of the transactions to the Bishop of the diocese.... I think I once read somewhere that often the Bishop's records often wouldn't be kept up to date but would be entered into the register when somebody got around to it and thus the dates might not match.     Some of my lines are in Norfolk where quite a few parish records didn't survive but luckily there are still some Bishop Transcripts to refer to.

[MUMMYG]

I dont know for sure but I wouldn t think they would have a different churches name on them if they were a BT. ?