Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Banns read but no Marriage
Collapse
X
-
Here's what Ancestry says 'If married by banns, the couple was required to announce or publish their intention to marry for three consecutive Sundays. If no one objected to the intended marriage, then the couple was allowed to marry. Just because banns were published does not guarantee the marriage actually took place. Therefore, it is possible to find a couple among the marriage banns, but not be able to find an actual marriage record for them.'
On this page .. http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=1623
-
Yes, somewhere along the way I have seen banns but no marriage, I can't remember who it was though.
I think I have one where the banns were read but the marriage did not take place for several months. Someone objected, or changed their mind perhaps or could the bride have died ?Diane
Sydney Australia
Avatar: Reuben Edward Page and Lilly Mary Anne Dawson
Comment
-
Originally posted by dicole View PostYes, somewhere along the way I have seen banns but no marriage, I can't remember who it was though.
I think I have one where the banns were read but the marriage did not take place for several months. Someone objected, or changed their mind perhaps or could the bride have died ?Sue x
Looking for Hanmores in Kent, Blakers in Essex and Kent, Pickards in East London and Raisons in Somerset.
Comment
-
Originally posted by susan h View PostHere's what Ancestry says 'If married by banns, the couple was required to announce or publish their intention to marry for three consecutive Sundays. If no one objected to the intended marriage, then the couple was allowed to marry. Just because banns were published does not guarantee the marriage actually took place. Therefore, it is possible to find a couple among the marriage banns, but not be able to find an actual marriage record for them.'
On this page .. http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=1623
The Marriage Act does not require banns to be read on consecutive Sundays the requirement is
"7.-(I) Subject to the provisions of section nine of this Act, banns of matrimony shall be published on three Sundays preceding the solemnization of the marriage during morning service or, if there is no morning service on a Sunday on which the banns are to be published, during evening service."
an important difference.
However to return to the original question about banns but no marriage.
It was not uncommon for banns to be read once, twice or even three times and no marriage take place, banns were simply announcement of the intention to marry..
Sometimes they would be read at a later date and the couple married, sometimes the couple never married and sometime one or both married other people (by licence or other having banns read)
Cheers
GuyGuy passed away October 2022
Comment
-
That's a good point Guy in which case it could be that the marriage date is well after the banns having been read. I have seen some where the last banns were the same day as the wedding as presumably people were expected to raise their objection immediately following the banns or even at the wedding ceremony.
Margaret
Comment
-
Val, was he in the workhouse or some other institution in both 1901 & 1911?
If so, the marital status might not be accurate on one or both returns. ( I'm thinking no wife, no homemaker; so he could be a widower.) The answer you get depends on the question; - "Are you married ?" could produce the answer "no" therefore implying you must be single. "Have you ever been married?" could produce the answer "yes," implying you still are married. Or, he could have been widowed in 1901 and remarried by 1911!
JayJanet in Yorkshire
Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree
Comment
-
As a matter of interest I have found banns for one of mine on ancesty in the LMA records, but no marriage, and knowing this ancestor, I think this is more a case of marriages just not got to Ancestry LMA, rather than no marriage.
Janet
Comment
-
There is a marriage record for Thomas Bruce marrying in 1898 to
Anna Mary Bygrave
Date of Registration: Oct-Nov-Dec 1898
Registration district: St Saviour Southwark
Inferred County: London
Volume Number: 1d
Page Number: 245
MargaretLast edited by margaretmarch; 07-04-14, 14:52.
Comment
-
Looking at the banns register, it would seem that if a subsequent marriage took place at that church (Walworth St John) the vicar noted in the banns reg the relevant marriage register entry number. (The parties with this number added can be found in the LMA marriage register images, whilst those without the additional number don't feature in the marriage reg images.)
So I guess they didn't marry at Walworth St John. However, the banns could have been called in two different parishes, depending on the home parish of both parties, and the marriage of these two could have taken place outside of London. I can't see anything in the GRO index though????
JayJanet in Yorkshire
Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree
Comment
Comment