RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Melbell 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
-
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
-
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?
-
There is also a transcript on Free Reg https://www.freereg.org.uk/
Bachelor and spinster - the same as the Ancestry transcription.
-
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
-
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.’
-
Good thinking, heywood. With ancestry anything is possible!
-
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
-
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
-
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.
I think you need to know that a lot of these records, especially in the earlier days of Ancestry, were outsourced to private companies for transcription by people who have zero genealogical knowledge and some did not have English as a first language.
Debra :)
-
The record I saw did not show ‘separated’ just ‘Sp.’
-
Thanks for your answer Dundee. I quite agree.
The record I saw did not show ‘separated’ just ‘Sp.’
The Ancestry listing referring to Separated is wrongly linked to the PR transcript.
The main thing is, that as Heywood has already pointed out, 'separated' has been substituted for 'sp'. And as I said before, what a silly mistake!
Melbell
-
I see it now :)
-
Supposedly, Banns were read in Guestling church in 28 December 1836 for George Jenkins and Hannah Sinden
Still disappointing that George and Hannah don't actually appear to be in the Guestling banns register!
The latest possible date for the third reading would have been on Sunday 25th December 1836
-
While it is obvious from the details discussed in this thread that "sp" should be interpreted as short for Spinster it is not correct to say that Separation in marriage is a modern concept.
I have a couple in one of my trees who gained a Legal Separation from an Ecclesiastical Court which was possible to do but very costly. The catch was that neither party could re-marry as long as both were alive.
The wife wrote in her Will dated 1703 that she had a Legal Separation from the Church. She then proceeded to leave goods and money acquired through her linen business (which included the rental of child-bed linen) to her son from her first marriage and her daughter from her second. She left money to two younger sons.
A search on the Internet finds numerous references regarding Ecclesiastical Separation including this one which also mentions that sometimes Separations were made privately and did not involve the Church Court at all.
https://news.smu.ca/news/2022/2/14/uncovering-new-twists-in-the-legal-history-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-englandnbspnbspnbsp
Venelow
Canada
-
Thanks for pointing this out Venelow, and for the link to the website.
Grateful :)
Melbell