josiah to john

[kylejustin]

i have the marriage license from FMP's cheshire marriage licenses and allegations collection of josiah warburton and elizabeth jansen in 1715. half the entry is in latin, and the other half english.

"thomas warburton de manlesfield (macclesfield?) ni parosh de presbury et comitat castria? chapman et joanne warburton parosh de bowdon ni comitat p dirt? yeoman"

"josiah warburton of the parish of bowdon and county of cheshire yeoman and elizabeth jansen of the same parish and county spinster"

signatures: thos warburton and john warburton in the presence of saml taylor and josiah banns? barnes?

my question is thus: why is josiah warburton called 'joanne' in the latin part? (obviously being latin for 'john') and why does he sign his name 'john' not 'josiah'?

this may have implications as there is no birth for josiah found, though many researchers of warburton families in bowdon are sure he fits in somewhere. should i be looking at john warburton births?

[JudithM]

Are the two men named in the Latin part not more likely to be the bondsmen for the marriage allegation rather than one of them being the groom? If so John Warburton and Josiah Warburton would be two different men.

[kylejustin]

In my experience the groom is always a bondsman?

[Olde Crone Holden]

But not in my experience, Kyle. I can think of several occasions when someone more trustworthy/richer/older/better known was a bondsman rather than the groom, who might not have any money.

oOC