Science1 min ago
Married or not
Yesterday I was looking at parish records at the local records office
I came across a marriage entry that gave the names of the bride and groom, however there was no signature or mark of the participants and no witness names.
Would I be right in thinking that the vicar had started to fill out the entry in preparation for the wedding and that it never took place
I came across a marriage entry that gave the names of the bride and groom, however there was no signature or mark of the participants and no witness names.
Would I be right in thinking that the vicar had started to fill out the entry in preparation for the wedding and that it never took place
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sigma. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm not an expert on this - I've only used transcripts. I hope the experts will be along later, but in the meantime here are some ideas.
The entry depends on several things - not everybody could write their name, but would make their mark; sometimes the witnesses were the churchwardens and I would guess a vicar wouldn't always trouble the churchwardens with actually signing the register. Some vicars were more conscientious than others! There is a huge difference in what was recorded, sometimes you get the occupations, sometimes you don't, sometimes the fathers' names, sometimes whether the marriage took place by licence or banns. If by banns then there 'should' be a record of that, but as you hint, the bride and groom may have had last minute doubts. There is also a set of records called the Bishop's Transcripts, which was a copy of the register sent off to the Bishop. I wouldn't think there would be a corresponding entry if the marriage failed to take place. If they still exist. In some areas only the Bishop's Transcripts have survived, better than nothing, but as in all copies, prone to error.
If I'd been the vicar and the marriage didn't actually take place I would have made a note to say so, or crossed it all out. So, hard to answer your question!
The entry depends on several things - not everybody could write their name, but would make their mark; sometimes the witnesses were the churchwardens and I would guess a vicar wouldn't always trouble the churchwardens with actually signing the register. Some vicars were more conscientious than others! There is a huge difference in what was recorded, sometimes you get the occupations, sometimes you don't, sometimes the fathers' names, sometimes whether the marriage took place by licence or banns. If by banns then there 'should' be a record of that, but as you hint, the bride and groom may have had last minute doubts. There is also a set of records called the Bishop's Transcripts, which was a copy of the register sent off to the Bishop. I wouldn't think there would be a corresponding entry if the marriage failed to take place. If they still exist. In some areas only the Bishop's Transcripts have survived, better than nothing, but as in all copies, prone to error.
If I'd been the vicar and the marriage didn't actually take place I would have made a note to say so, or crossed it all out. So, hard to answer your question!
That is more likely to be the result of banns being read in two parishes and the marriage probably took place in another, there would have possibly been a license applied for which had to name which churches (if the couple were from different parishes, and bondsmen stood (signed) to confirm the couple were legally allowed to marry. The vicar will have possibly prepared the register in advance and then the wedding could have taken place in the other parish due to travel problems (weather perhaps) or other issues. That is why banns are read, to notify people in each parish but also it means the couple can marry in either.
1 to 4 of 4
