Birchanger Marriage lookup request

[Milliepede]

There are 2 records for the couple

one 14 Jan 1787 Great Waltham and
one 20 Feb 1787 Birchanger
so assume the later date would be the marriage and the earlier date the banns?

Only transcriptions though it looks like the originals were looked up earlier by Clincher.

[Ann12]

What's strange is they read banns three times before the marriage, which means the Great Waltham one would come to four!! 

Anna

[jonwarrn]

The marriage at Birchanger in 1787 is also transcribed on FreeReg
https://www.freereg.org.uk/

Banns were called at Great Waltham, 31 Dec 1786, 7 Jan, 14 Jan
Says John was of Manuden, Mary of this parish
You can see that on FamilySearch if you are logged in
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-67F3-G54?i=34&cat=60997

[jonwarrn]

Re the marriage witnesses
Marriage at Birchanger, 14 Feb 1786
Joseph Luckin (of Great Waltham) + Jane Edith Mumford

Info from FreeReg

[nannyj]

There are 2 records for the couple

one 14 Jan 1787 Great Waltham and
one 20 Feb 1787 Birchanger
so assume the later date would be the marriage and the earlier date the banns?

Only transcriptions though it looks like the originals were looked up earlier by Clincher.

On the Birchanger  marriage record, John is from manuden. There are five witnesses to the marriage!
Elizabeth lucken, Jane Edith lucken, Joseph lucken, Sarah Mumford, Eunice markwell. Unusual. Not seen that many on records before.

[jonwarrn]

But banns for a marriage that didn't take place in either Great Waltham or Manuden.

When I looked at the banns page 10 entry 49  for confirmation of spelling of husband's name that looked more like JOSELYNE and both were said to be OTP and single. Banns called 4/2, 11/2 and 18/2 in 1787

Different dates to the Great Waltham banns! Pity there doesn't seem to be a surviving banns register for the period for Manuden.
And John apparently OTP on the later Birchanger banns, but of Manuden on the marriage.

[nannyj]

Sorry. Only just read earlier posts that said he was of manuden. He would only have had to be living in manuden at the time of th banns to say he was of manuden though, I suppose?

[jonwarrn]

Yes, nannyj, but I was wondering if there was a change of plan here? But I guess they wouldn't call banns twice over in Manuden, and if it says John was of Birchanger on the banns in Birchanger it would make sense. But then you have confirmed that it says John was of Manuden on the marriage record.
I may be losing the plot...

[nannyj]

Just been checking the manuden Parish registers.
There’s a pollard and Alice Joycelyn having children there for 1752 to 1763.
Thomas, James, William, Sarah, Daniel, Richard ... but no John!