EDWARD NORRIS Baptism c1697 SOPLEY

[anewitt]

Hello could somebody PLEASE help ?
I'm seeking Baptism details for EDWARD NORRIS & JANE SMITH who married in 1722 at SOPLEY.
Both hopefully between 1680 and 1705 at SOPLEY.
If somebody could assist, that would be greatly appreciated.
THANK YOU & Kind regards, Alan.

[Little Nell]

Sorry, nothing for Edward Norris in Sopley that I can see.

There is an Edward Norres son of Robert baptised in Fordingbridge 28 Aug 1660, but I think that's way too early!

Lots of possibilities for spelling variants on that one.

No success in Sopley for Jane Smith either. 

Any possibility that they might be non-conformists?   There is a reference in the HRO catalogue for Dissenters' Meeting House (Presbyterian) certificate in Sopley in 1727.
"House of Edward Norris, minister John Smith"

Although I did spot some baptisms recorded in the Sopley register for some children of Edward & Jane.

Nell

Added: there is a record of an inventory of Edward Norris/Norries of Fordingbridge in 1673 at HRO.

[anewitt]

Hello Nell,
              THANK YOU for that information.
Maybe it's a possibility they could have been Non-Conformist.

Edward & Jane's daughter, Jane (b1723), was my ancestor.
I understand that there's a Will for Thomas Norris at Christchurch in 1721, maybe I should look at that to see if there is any connection.
Kind Regards, Alan.

[bearkat]

It looks like they married by licence (from internet search result, snippet view won't show)

 NORRIS, Edward, of Sopley, yeoman, & Jane Smith, of the s., sp., 4 April., 1722.

[anewitt]

Hello bearkat,
                   THANK YOU for that information, which usually indicates that either one person or both was a minor, or a widow/er. However, JANE SMITH is recorded as a spinster.
Kind regards, Alan.

[bearkat]

People married by licence for many reasons

Either the bride or groom was a minor
They were not marrying in their home parish
They were marrying in a hurry, perhaps the bride was pregnant
They didn't want everyone to know of their intentions (banns had to be read in church for 3 weeks)
It was a status symbol - something you did if you could afford it

[anewitt]

Hello bearkat,
                    THANK YOU for that further information.
I can only say that their marriage by licence could have been for any of those reasons, as I don't have any further information at this stage.
Kind regards, Alan.