Author Topic: Marriage banns  (Read 512 times)

Offline Lynne Tann-Watson

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage banns
« Reply #9 on: Friday 26 April 19 07:19 BST (UK) »
Oooh thank you! I wonder why I didn't find that. I guess I'd better buy the certificate.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline lancsann

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 947
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage banns
« Reply #10 on: Friday 26 April 19 16:34 BST (UK) »
that 3rd marriage is interesting. It took place on 7th June and then was presumably annulled. It is crossed out in the register with the note that the banns read in the groom's parish were in the name of Turner not Tann.

They were presumably read again as 3 weeks later on 28th June the marriage took place again.

Imagine what confusion that would cause today!

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Lynne Tann-Watson

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage banns
« Reply #11 on: Friday 26 April 19 17:43 BST (UK) »
Goodness, that is interesting. Just goes to show you really need to look at original documents and not just rely on on-line sources! I assume that the mistake in the calling of the banns meant that the marriage wasn't actually legal in which case they presumable wouldn't have had to annul it. Thank you for that.

Offline Andrew Tarr

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,246
  • Wanted: Charles Percy Liversidge
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage banns
« Reply #12 on: Friday 26 April 19 18:28 BST (UK) »
It is crossed out in the register with the note that the banns read in the groom's parish were in the name of Turner not Tann.

They were presumably read again as 3 weeks later on 28th June the marriage took place again.

Imagine what confusion that would cause today!
 
I wonder about the marriage of my ggg-grandfather, married in 1805 as Henry Pearson, when his surname was actually Piercy ?
Tarr, Tydeman, Liversidge, Bartlett, Young

Offline Lynne Tann-Watson

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage banns
« Reply #13 on: Wednesday 01 May 19 11:12 BST (UK) »
Oh how awful! I just received the death certificate of Mary Tann. It is the right one, and the cause of death is "Burns in body and limbs. Clothing ignited by cinder from fire. (5days)". She was 19 and they had only been married for 16 months.

Offline Mckha489

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,166
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage banns
« Reply #14 on: Wednesday 01 May 19 11:24 BST (UK) »
Itís described in the newspapers.
I tried to clip it for you. But too large a file.
Iíll try again
currently concentrating on NUTCHER & MARSHALL families, Hampshire.
and family of Thomas ANDERSON a Tailor of Perth, Scotland

Offline Mckha489

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,166
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage banns
« Reply #15 on: Wednesday 01 May 19 11:25 BST (UK) »
Clipping
currently concentrating on NUTCHER & MARSHALL families, Hampshire.
and family of Thomas ANDERSON a Tailor of Perth, Scotland

Offline Lynne Tann-Watson

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage banns
« Reply #16 on: Wednesday 01 May 19 11:43 BST (UK) »
Thank you. Makes difficult reading!