Author Topic: "Separated" as marital status in 1836 marriage banns.  (Read 751 times)

Offline Melbell

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
"Separated" as marital status in 1836 marriage banns.
« on: Wednesday 22 November 23 17:56 GMT (UK) »
Supposedly, Banns were read in Guestling church in 28 December 1836 for George Jenkins and Hannah Sinden.....Clearly then an Ancestry typo/muddle with the PR transcript, as the couple actually married on 28 December 1836..

But what intrigues me - is, who decided to mark the Banns entry as "marital status: Separated"? Really? In 1836? How do you find the evidence for that?!

Melbell

Offline PaulineJ

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,314
    • View Profile
Re: "Separated" as marital status in 1836 marriage banns.
« Reply #1 on: Wednesday 22 November 23 18:35 GMT (UK) »
maybe seperated as in one partner has beggared off and hasn't been seen for 7 years?

Wouldn't trust anything that has been transcribed; I'd want to view originals
All census look up transcriptions are Crown Copyright http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
======================================
We are not a search engine. We are human beings.

Offline heywood

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 40,869
    • View Profile
Re: "Separated" as marital status in 1836 marriage banns.
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday 22 November 23 18:40 GMT (UK) »
I can only see a typed transcription.
Does it not mean that they were married after banns?
Others on the list  show ‘licence’ or ‘banns’.
There is no mention of ‘separated’ either just ‘b’ and ‘sp.

Where are the records you have?
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline heywood

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 40,869
    • View Profile
Re: "Separated" as marital status in 1836 marriage banns.
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday 22 November 23 18:45 GMT (UK) »
There is also a transcript on Free Reg https://www.freereg.org.uk/

Bachelor and spinster - the same as the Ancestry transcription.
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Offline jonw65

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,781
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Separated" as marital status in 1836 marriage banns.
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday 22 November 23 21:12 GMT (UK) »
Image of the Guestling marriage is on FamilySearch. Parish register. It does not say separated.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-D1H3-VQZ

Can't see George and Hannah in the banns! :(
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6RQ3-DV3

Offline heywood

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 40,869
    • View Profile
Re: "Separated" as marital status in 1836 marriage banns.
« Reply #5 on: Wednesday 22 November 23 21:46 GMT (UK) »
That’s good Jon.
As Ancestry is mentioned, I wonder if ‘banns’ on the transcript has been interpreted as a banns reading rather than married by banns and similarly ‘sp’ as ‘separated.’
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline jonw65

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,781
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Separated" as marital status in 1836 marriage banns.
« Reply #6 on: Wednesday 22 November 23 22:25 GMT (UK) »
Good thinking, heywood. With ancestry anything is possible!

Offline Melbell

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Separated" as marital status in 1836 marriage banns.
« Reply #7 on: Thursday 23 November 23 11:46 GMT (UK) »
Thanks for all your thoughts.

Sorry - I think my post was unclear! :-[    The marriage is recorded in the Guestling Register (original on Ancestry). The transcript (also on Ancestry) introduced the muddle.

I was asking about the marital status being described (by Ancestry?) as "Separated". Surely this cannot be correct - it's a modern concept. I think Heywood's explanation is right - someone has interpreted 'sp' as 'Separated' rather than as 'spinster'. But what a silly mistake.     

Thanks Heywood! and everyone who helped.

Melbell

 

Offline omega 1

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,493
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Separated" as marital status in 1836 marriage banns.
« Reply #8 on: Thursday 23 November 23 12:21 GMT (UK) »
Hello

According to the Sussex Marriage Index CD,George and Hannah married 28 Dec 1836 at Guestling,Sussex.There is no extra information for them.

omega
Pembrokeshire
James,Gibby,David/Davies,Evan/s,Edward,Thomas,Griffith,Brown,Richards,Phillipps
Carmarthenshire
Thomas,Wilkin,James
Glamorganshire
James
Husbands side
Sussex,Mitchell,White,Hew/Hugh,Peter/s,Lower,Goring,Skinner,Cavey,Padgham,Brann,Graves,Hards,Easton,Moon,Gibb/s,Shepherd
Kent,Curties,Harris/Cleverly
Buckinhamshire
Shephard,Tuck,Philips

Scotland,Riddle

Todd,could be Old Windsor or somewhere I Lincolnshire,John Todd didn't seem to know