RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: Seelife on Saturday 29 November 25 16:13 GMT (UK)
-
Hi Folks, it has been a long time, but I am back hunting for Wind families in County Durham of the 1700s. I have a few families in the Chester-Le-Street, Lamesley and Gateshead area. Some I can work out. But there is one, a William Wind marrying an Ann Watson at CLS, St Cuthberts Church. Now I have a William Wind in Lamesley that does not appear to have any recorded marriane, but has five kids in Cow Close and registered at St Andrews, Anglican.
So, my question is, did folk change or use churches of convenience, or were they more bound to one religious grouping but changed churches as the needed or moved but stayed Anglical, Catholic or whatever in the earlier 1700´s?
Thanks
-
I think having a girlfriend who went to a different church could be quite significant. You're likely to get married in her church at the very least.
Zaph
-
Zaphod is correct - it was custom and practice to marry in the bride's church.
-
Yes as people moved they would also be likely to attend the nearest church of their chosen denomination. CLS to Lamesley, at a rough estimate is about 4-5 miles.That's quite a walk or cart ride (if they owned one) especially in the winter.
Though unless you have evidence that shows if it was 'his' home parish or that of his bride its possible they married in her parish and then set up home in his.
Boo
-
Also some churches had 'offers' to attract people - a particular one in London offered a fresh loaf of bread to all couples who married there which attracted non-locals as well as those living nearby.
Other small churches may also have offered incentives meaning that some events took place outside of their local area.
Pheno
-
Few people owned a horse, still less a carriage, so they would go to a church in walking distance from home, usually the nearest.
-
As regards baptisms of their children people often walked to the neighbouring village if that is where the vicar was officiating that day rather than necessarily waiting till the vicar was in their own village church.
Lots of "absentee" rectors/vicars too, who had been given the living but didn't do much !
Agree that most couples married in the bride's church.
Don't think people actually changed denomination easily, unless an Anglican man was marrying a Catholic woman or vice versa. Frought with difficulties in the 1700s.
-
As others have said customer would be to get married in the bride’s church. However I would not be to focussed on ruling people out because it seems to far or they have changed from Catholic to Anglican.
I think we can allow one conversion in a lifetime!
There was also a lot of religious turmoil going on in some areas of the country, the growth of the various dissenting churches etc and people would think of nothing travelling a few miles to go to a preacher they approved of.
I have evidence of some of my family travelling about 20 miles to go to church.
-
On a wider point, the 1700s saw the rise of several nonconformist movements, such as Methodism (in its several flavours) and so a person might well have been won over to a different faith by a charismatic visiting preacher and begin attending another place of worship.
-
Andy -- you mention Methodism - by coincidence my own 5 X Gt Grandfather was a Clerk at his C of E Church for 29 years until his death.
However his son, my 4 X Gt Grandfather, converted to Methodism.
HIS children were baptised twice - as initially, the nearest Methodist Chapel was some miles away in a different little township - a long walk away, BUT, when a Methodist Chapel was created in his own township - the children were baptised again.
-
As far as marriage is concerned -
Until 1837, all marriages (except those involving Quakers and Jews) had to take place in the parish church and according to the rites of the Church of England.
The 1836 Marriage Act made provision for the registration, for the solemnization of marriages, of any building certified as a place of religious worship, as from 1 July 1837.A registrar of marriages had to attend and register the marriage. To give non-conformist bodies the same rights as enjoyed by the Established Church, Quakers and Jews, the Marriage Act 1898 provided for the appointment (by the governing body of a registered building) of an authorised person in whose presence the marriage had to be solemnized and by whom it had to be registered.
-
Hi, thanks for the inputs. I also realised that St Andrews Lamesley and St Cuthberts CLS are both Anglican, so there is that at least. There was a period about 1740s when Lamesley was in disrepair apparently and it was rebuilt in about 1759 (I think). So some bouncing around may be OK.
I still cannot tie William Wind marriage to Cow Close, but it seems "possible".
Irritating but another William Wind married an Ann Hopper 1750 in Witton Gilbert, C Durham. Its further away and I dont think it links to Lamesley....
EDIT
I found that the Witton Gilbert marriage says that both are from Kimblesworth, so two different Williams, they were married at St. Michaels, which is Anglican in 1750, William (of Kimblesworth) to Ann Hopper (of Kimblesworth) according to RecordsOnline. So William and Ann are still possibilities
-
Yes,as Methodism and Baptism gained ground many working class people joined those sects, but the belief was that a baptism in the Cof E - Anglicanism, was “ stronger “ and as infant deaths were all too common babies were baptised in the church ,and also Baptists believe that total immersion
is required ,hence the deep tanks in the chapels, you could not safely submerge a baby.
Churches sort of segregated the poor from the wealthy ,ie pews bought and reserved by wealthy families whilst” hoi polloi “ stood at the back often !
Methodism was a great leveller .
Viktoria.
-
Yes,as Methodism and Baptism gained ground many working class people joined those sects, but the belief was that a baptism in the Cof E - Anglicanism, was “ stronger “ and as infant deaths were all too common babies were baptised in the church ,and also Baptists believe that total immersion
is required ,hence the deep tanks in the chapels, you could not safely submerge a baby.
Viktoria.
My understanding of the Baptist Church is that no-one is baptised until they are able to make an informed choice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believer%27s_baptism), so this usually doesn't occur before the mid teens or later. I don't think Baptists adhered to the idea that everyone was intrinsically sinful from birth and therefore needed the 'protection' of baptism at an early age if they were to be saved from damnation.
-
There was also the influence of who you worked for. In the later 18th cent. entrepreneurs were building factories, creating industrial towns, and many of them were also involved in setting up non-conformist chapels. The parish church was more likely to see "professional" people: lawyers, accountants, medics and grammar school masters. It was probably deemed politic to be seen worshipping in the "correct" place.
-
Yes,as Methodism and Baptism gained ground many working class people joined those sects, but the belief was that a baptism in the Cof E - Anglicanism, was “ stronger “ and as infant deaths were all too common babies were baptised in the church ,and also Baptists believe that total immersion
is required ,hence the deep tanks in the chapels, you could not safely submerge a baby.
Viktoria.
My understanding of the Baptist Church is that no-one is baptised until they are able to make an informed choice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believer%27s_baptism), so this usually doesn't occur before the mid teens or later. I don't think Baptists adhered to the idea that everyone was intrinsically sinful from birth and therefore needed the 'protection' of baptism at an early age if they were to be saved from damnation.
Of course ! I had forgotten that,it had to be a conscious decision by an adult .
I have mentioned that elsewhere on RootsChat ,how silly of me to forget :-[
Many thanks.Viktoria.