RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: JustinL on Thursday 17 April 08 11:51 BST (UK)
-
For some time I have assumed that I descend from the marriage of
Robert Parkinson of the parish of St. Catherine Coleman, MDX and
Clarissa Hardess of the same parish
who married by banns in the parish church on 6th Feb 1815.
By a scarcely believeable coincidence I have the licence and registration for the marriage of:
Robert Parkinson of St. Giles in the Fields to
Clarissa Elizabeth Hardess of St. George in the East
in St. Giles on 5th Jan 1815.
Clarissa is an unusual name and only appears once in the large Hardess family tree.
My question is whether anyone has come across a couple marrying twice? Could the first marriage have been invalid for some reason or another, even though it was recorded in the parish register?
Or are they simply two separate couples?
Any thoughts?
Justin
-
Hi Justin
I would check out the actual parish registers to see what is entered on each marriage.
I've come across combined 'banns and marriage' registers where it looks like the couple have married but they haven't, just the banns called.
The registers for St Katherine Coleman are at the Guildhall Library in London
The registers for St Giles have been microfilmed and can be seen at the London Metropolitan Archvies
Dawn
-
Hi
The first marriage is only a few weeks before the second one so there may have been a problem with the banns which resulted in the wedding being deferred
I came across a similar situation last year when helping somebody with their research. When somebody checked the marriage entries - the first wedding was cancelled due to the "inebriation of the groom"
-
One of my Macgee lot have that!! One week apart, but as to why... who knows!
-
Below is the marriage registration from the register of St. Giles.
The entry from the register of St. Katherine Coleman, which was transcribed from the microfilm in the Guildhall, says that the couple married in that church too.
It seems two weddings did take place.
Justin
-
It appears you have seen both entries. Have you compared the bride and groom's signatures?
Dawn
-
Was the other marriage by licence?
Did you say you had the "licence" (bond/allegation). Anything interesting there?
-
it may be something simple like they married in both parties parishes so family could attend ???
sometimes banns were read and the parties never married, or didnt marry at that time, i have come across this a few times
-
Thank you everyone for your interest and input.
I haven't yet seen the original registration from St. Katherine Coleman. I hope to soon, then I'll certainly compare signatures.
The licence does not tell me anything more; it does not even mention Robert's occupation. My ancestor was a tea dealer and grocer.
The second marriage (6 Feb) was by banns.
Maybe Clarissa Elizabeth was in fact a cousin (or aunt ?) of the Clarissa who married in St. Katherine Coleman.
Quite a mystery?
-
Just to chip in ... there is a death registered for Clarissa Elizabeth Parkinson 1852 in Newington district - which is where Robert and Clarissa are in 1851 isn't it? So if that is the same person then I think the marriages are thesame couple. But the signatures will be interesting - good thing they could sign!
-
Here's a fairly faint copy of the other wedding in St. katherine Coleman.
I can scarcely read the signatures, I'll shall try and obtain a better one.
-
Having looked at the signatures, I'd say it was the same groom, he signs both times as 'Robt' and in the surname the 'P' and the last 'n' which has a bit of a flick up at the end, are the same.
Looks like a different set of witnesses though.
Thanks for sharing this with us, still can't explain the double marriage though.
Dawn
-
Is it possible the groom was in the army? If he was, and had married without the consent of his commanding officer, it was not unusual for there to be a second marriage after consent was granted, to enable the wife to be included on the army roll.
Duplicate marriages are not as uncommon as one may imagine, there has been a series of items in The Family Tree Magazine over the last few months, where a lot of these so called duplicate marriages have been found.
Jebber
-
I think I can also make out the little flurish on the k in Parkinson.
It still strikes me as odd that Clarissa left out her middle name, and that both were living in a different parish.
Jebber - it's very encouraging to hear that duplicate marriages were not uncommon. I had ceetainly never heard of the pratice. However, Robert Parkinson was a tea dealer and grocer.
I hope that a better copy of the later marriage will clich the matter.
Thanks for your interest.
Justin
-
It's odd that they were married first by licence and, one month later, by banns.
Why would they need a licence and then have banns read three Sundays in a row?
What does "by licence of the Archbishop of Canterbury" signify? It's not the same as (and is too early for) a civil licence.
Regards,
Josephine
-
I dont know if this is the reason for the duplicate entry, but
I have found with some of mine that they appear to be married
twice but in fact it is the later entry, and the duplication is due to
the banns being read in another parish.
Also another reason is some churches become amalgamated and
the larger church takes on the records of the other (this is usually on
the same day though).
Another reason for a duplicate marriage is to do with Catholics
marrying in the Catholic Church AND then the parish church.
Jinks
-
Hello Josephine,
This link at least answers the easy question about the licence:
http://www.history.ac.uk/gh/marrlic.htm
I completely agree with your point about licence and banns. If they genuinely married twice, then somehow the first marriage must have been declared invalid.
Something very strange was going on here.
-
Thank you, JustinL, that is very interesting!
I hadn't known that a couple could get a licence prior to civil registration.
I hope you can solve this mystery.
Regards,
Josephine
-
Just thought I'd close out this query.
Some information I received last week dies not explain why they married twice, but it at least confirms that it was the same couple.
In a diary kept by Clarissa's uncle, he recorded that Clarissa Elziabeth Hardess married Robert Parkinson on 6 Feb 1815 in St. Katherine Coleman.
Furthermore, their first child was born at 172 High Holborn in St. Giles in the Fields.
Thanks to you all,
Justin
-
Hi Justin,
I know that this thread is very old (!) but my wife is also descended from Clarissa Hardess and Robert Parkinson.
We haven't been able to track Robert Parkinson back very far but we have traced Clarissa's German ancestors back to the 15th century, should you be interested. Some fascinating people along the way !
Let me know if you want to know more.
Martin