Extract from “Betrothment and Marriage, A Canonical And Theological Treatise With Notices On History And Civil Law,
by Canon De Smet, S. T. L. Professor of theology in the Grand Seminar de Bruges. 1912.
“… Place of publication [of banns]: The publication ought to be made in the parish in which each of the parties has a domicile or quasi-domicile. For vagi (those who have no domicile or quasi-domicile), the publication takes place in the parish in which they happen to be actually residing. This first rule follows from the purpose of the law, and from the terms employed by the Council of Trent, which enjoins that the publication of the banns should be made by the particular parish priest of the contracting parties. On the same grounds the banns of those, whose domicile or quasi-domicile is in different parishes, must be published in their respective parishes ; and if one or the other has two domiciles, or a domicile and a quasi-domicile, then the publication must be made in all these different places. It sometimes happens that strict observance of the law would lead to utterly useless publication. In such a case we cannot say that the law lapses, as we shall show later, but there is then good reason to ask for a dispensation, or for the Bishop to make some special provision. It happens thus, for example, when the engaged parties have very recently acquired a new domicile or quasi-domicile ; or when their legal domicile is a place where they are quite unknown and have never resided ; the same may be said with regard to vagi who make a merely momentary stay in a place. ...”
My interest in the Priest's notation in the marriage entry was to see it it raised any new matters of genealogical relevance to me e.g. other marriages, close familial relationships etc. I'm now satisfied that's not the case.
Thanks for all your help.
regards John
