RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: MUMMYG on Tuesday 09 October 12 11:32 BST (UK)
-
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
Would I be right in thinking that it could be because the lady had a child aged 2 born out of wedlock and didnt want the neighbours to know it? I think this baby is my ancestor although I cant find an official birth cert, only a parish one :(
The second is, why would they baptise their following child in two different churches 6 miles apart and three months apart?
Actually here is another anomaly, how can you prove that a Nancy and Ann are one and the same person?
On all birth records she is Nancy, on the marriage she is Nancy and in all the censuses she is Ann ? ?
-
Hi
Was the Liverpool church St Nicholas? I recall reading that there were churches that were less particular about people meeting residential requirements or when people preferred not to marry in their local area. St Nicholas in Liverpool was, I believe, one of them, and Manchester Cathedral another.
Andy
-
In Scotland Nancy/Nan and Ann (and even Agnes sometimes) are all interchangeable,they probably are in England too ;D
I have ancestors who married at St Nicholas Liverpool in 1852- he came from Macclesfield in Cheshire. I have no idea why he was in Liverpool either.
Carol
-
It was fashionable in the middle of the 19th century to get married in a nice city church away from the local population. You will find many families that could afford it doing this. If the marriage was by licence no residential qualification was necessary. However in many cases the participants used what was known as "a suitcase address" where they just left a suitcase for the necessary three weeks or so and never actually stayed there. Residence is only necessary for the three weeks it takes to call the banns.
-
My great grandparents married in Liverpool though they always lived in New Brighton. The certificate has them living at two different addresses in Liverpool that they cannot have lived in for any serious amount of time. Neither address exists nowadays.
The reason was that my grandmother had just been born in New Brighton. They married, then were able to register her birth under their married names.
This wasn't the only inaccuracy on the cert. They both claimed to be "of full age" which neither of them were, and my great grandfather put his grandfather's name where his father's should have been, because he was illegitimate (as was his bride I believe - no marriage found, but she knew who her father was.)
The five untruths on this cert, and another three on my grandparents' (on the other side) marriage cert (mother put in the father's name box - illegitimacy again - wrong christian name for bride, unexpected surname) make me wonder - if the only two certs I know the facts for (the latter found by my mother after her mother's death, so no doubts) are so inaccurate, can I really rely on the info on other, older ones where the cert is all I have?
See various Rootschat threads, passim
Chris
-
St Nicholas appears to have been used when there was something "iffy" involved.
I have one chap who married his dead wife's sister, which was officially illegal and would certainly have been frowned upon closer to home.
I assume that being able to show people back home a marriage certificate from the big city would convince them that everything was legitimate.
In my lot the practice seems to start after Civil Registration. Prior to that the people who used Liverpool had some connection to the city.
-
Thanks for you replies all.
The church was St John in Liverpool in 1841 after Banns and they both state they live in Knight Street, is there any way of finding them there? thing is the marriage was before the census so they can be found tucked up in married bliss back home in the 1841 one along with child. He is only a labourer though. Any suggestions ?
Someone suggested that her legal name may have been Nancy (her baptism record says Nancy also) but as she preferred to be called Ann, this is what she filled in on the census. Sounds feasible to me.
What about the other query, why two baptisms different churches, both parish churches no change of denomination just one was the main district parish church and the second one was the village where they actually lived?
-
Interesting to read the post from MummyG. Here is a strong echo ...
One of my ancestors married in a church a few miles from her home. At the time her marriage, she already had two children by the man she had been living with for many years. After the marriage they continued to lived in the same home for many years.
I agree with MummyG that this kind of arrangement may well have been to keep it hidden from the neighbours.
As for first names, the wife was Sarah Ellen, or Ellen, or Sarah or depending on which document you read!
-
Hi
I also had a Nancy/Ann dilemma that drove me batty for months.
At least yours is consistent. With mine some of the children are bapised with a mother's name of Nancy and some with a mother called Ann. William marries a Nancy but most of the census records show him with Ann. It really was most confusing and I was convinced for a while that William was leading a double life with two families........ By the end however, the evidence was stacking up so much that it became clear that Nancy/Ann were the same person with Nancy as her 'proper' name but likely preferring to be called Ann.
Quite why the same vicar in their own parish church would use the two interchangably I have yet to figure out. Rather think they were not overly regular church goers!
Viki
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I dont know for sure but I wouldn t think they would have a different churches name on them if they were a BT. ?
-
Was Billinge a chapelry rather than an parish?
If so its baptisms may have been written up twice - in Billinge's own chapelry registers but also in the registers of the parish church.
-
Ah! that maybe the answer avm228, Im not sure I Ill have to find someone who knows about the church, good thinking thankyou.
-
I went back and thoroughly checked the records on ancestry and find that the St Helens record for this double baptism WAS a Bishops Transcript, there was also a third record for Parish Records at Preston that lists it as a baptism for the Prescot District :) Its all or nothing in this game isnt it
Thats that one solved then.
Thanks again :)
-
I have come across some odd events too. One of my families had their children baptised in the Wesleyan chapel at Ormskirk, but also at the CofE up the hill "just in case".
One of my lot was baptised twice in the same church, two weeks apart. For the second event he appears to have been brought in to give a visiting clergyman "something to do".
-
Oh my, and I think Ive got trouble :D
-
Andrew
Are you sure that your baptisms two weeks apart weren't a home baptism of a child not expected to survive followed by the presentation of the child to the congregation two weeks later. In these cases often both were recorded in the register. If you can see the actual register that might give you a better idea.
-
The first baptism was pretty standard. At the second baptism (only one that day), the clergyman is definitely a visitor - his normal parish is given and the next baptism reverts to the normal clergyman.
Come to think of it, my eldest neice could have caused confusion too. Her eldest daughter was born in Canberra, but baptised in Lancashire at 3 months old by a friend of the family.