GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2010-04 > 1271722645


From: Ron Lankshear in Sydney NSW <>
Subject: Re: Banns in one parish, marriage in another
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:17:25 +1000
References: <mailman.377.1271672104.20086.genbrit@rootsweb.com><eLVo0gGnNDzLFwdr@virgin.net>
In-Reply-To: <eLVo0gGnNDzLFwdr@virgin.net>


On 2010-04-19 8:41 PM, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>
> But the law also required them to be married within 3 months of the
> publication of the Banns (or so I believe.) The marriage took place
> nearly 6 months after. There's no way of knowing the reason for this but
> I am presuming one or other party or both moved from St Luke's to St
> Mary's, and I am looking for confirmation (or denial!) that they would
> have had to "start all over again" and have the Banns called in St
> Mary's (again if they had been published there also in October.)
yes 3 months that is what I understand

Marriage appears to be RICHARD - Jane puts a mark
so not clear if she agrees spelling and father's
name also appears to be RICHARD and added to cert
by another hand (what does that mean) but confirms
spelling.

I wondered if Ancestry had muddled Banns and
churches but first couple on page Maria Newman and
Robert Naylor did marry in Islington

I could only find Jane Meader after marriage in
1871 as born 1850/51 in Islington but that is a
ditto for Walter so is not reliable.
Now even if born 1850 she was likely not of full
age in April 1870.

So some possibles
Father did not allow marriage in 1869.

Banns had to be re-called because her name had
been called wrongly Rickard not Richard.

They went to St Luke's as not known there or
because St Mary's messed it up

Father is not Alfred (not many Alfred ric*ard
around in London)



--
Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds
Bush/Chiswick)
try my links
http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/

This thread: