Confusion over marriage place

[tuppence_123]

On 8 April 1823 Thomas Coombes married Mary Sealy, but I am not exactly sure where.

I have not been able to see the actual marriage register and am relying on online transcripts, and this is where the confusion has set in.  While the date is the same on all the records, the place is not.

On ancestry and family search the place of marriage is listed as East Coker.

On find my past there are two entries for the marriage.  One lists the place of marriage as East Brent, the groom's parish as Burnham and no bride's parish.  The other lists the place of marriage as Enmore and residence as Enmore (but I am not sure if this is the bride or groom).

Can anyone shed any light on which of these places, and therefore which church, the couple would probably have been married in?

Cathryn

[PaulineJ]

So this is the familysearch indexed record?

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NXXH-KP8

What parishes do the film numbers cover? does that narrow it down? Looks like marriage is in the BT's to me

https://familysearch.org/catalog/search

[DRH123]

Familysearch frequently gets the place wrong, usually confusing parishes whose registers are on the same microfilm (as East Brent and East Coker probably are). Ancestry's entry is copied from FS. So on that basis I would expect FindMyPast to be correct. FreeREG agrees with the first FindMyPast entry - East Brent with the groom from Burnham. They cover Enmore but have no matching entry there. The way FreeREG is organised, with individual files covering single registers usually uploaded by the transcriber, it is very unlikely they would attribute a record to the wrong parish.

So I would be 99% sure the wedding was at East Brent. You can ask FreeREG to check,
( http://freereg2.freereg.org.uk/contacts/new  and specify Data Question )

David

[jusnoneed]

Hi, on the Rooksbridge site this is shown -

from Burnham on Sea Som Thomas Coombes was born (date unknown)
Spouse Mary Sealy. Mary Sealy and Thomas Coombes were married on 8th April 1823 in East Brent. Witnessed John Sealy and Mary Hill.

[tuppence_123]

Thank you all for those responses - I think I can be fairly sure that the marriage was in East Brent.

Thank you also for the information on the Rooksbridge site - I hadn't heard of this one before.  Having the names of the witnesses to the marriage may help me work out a bit more about Mary.  I have an approximate date of birth for her from census (which all indicate she was born in Burnham) and death records but have so far not been able to find any record of her birth (approx 1796) - I was beginning to wonder if she may have been widowed when she married Thomas.

Again, many thanks to you all for your quick and helpful responses.

Cathryn

[jusnoneed]

Hi, found a Burnham on Sea baptism for a Mary Sealy, 18 Jan 1797 parents Joseph & Martha. There is also one for John Sealy 29 Dec 1799 same parents.

Others too - same parents
Thomas 16 Mar 1794
Ann 18 Jul 1802
James 30 Dec 1804
George 16 Mar 1809

There is also a Sealy daughter, no Christian name, bapt 28 Dec 1794 with parents Josias & Betty.

[DRH123]

Just noticed FreeREG actually has two entries for the marriage at East Brent, taken from the parish register and the BTs and transcribed by different people, so you can certainly be confident the wedding happened there. (The first has COOMBS rather than COOMBES.) Interestingly, they disagree about the second witness, Mary WILD or Mary HILL. That could be a mistake by one of the modern transcribers or by whoever made the contemporary copy for the bishop - signatures can be very difficult.

The record on the Rooksbridge site is copied from the transcript of the BTs used on FreeREG and shared with the  Brent & Wrington Hundred Group.

[tuppence_123]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! 

I'd say that baptism for Mary in January 1797 is the one I've been searching for.  And the entry on FreeReg also clears up that she was a spinster when she married.

I've looked at FreeReg in the past but always had great difficulty getting any results when I entered search details.  For whatever reason, now it seems to be working for me - who knows what I was doing wrong before!

Cathryn

[Beeonthebay]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! 

I'd say that baptism for Mary in January 1797 is the one I've been searching for.  And the entry on FreeReg also clears up that she was a spinster when she married.

I've looked at FreeReg in the past but always had great difficulty getting any results when I entered search details.  For whatever reason, now it seems to be working for me - who knows what I was doing wrong before!

Cathryn

They may have only just been uploaded.  I do some transcribing for FreeReg and don't upload at a regular time just when I feel I should.  We are told to just work at our own pace, no pressure or timelines which suits me just fine.