It meant that the person (bride or groom) had been living in the parish for the required amount of time. That was, and still is, only a few weeks.
Even on marriage certificates for marriages after 1837 it only says where the person claimed to be living at the time of the marriage. There never has been any clue to where they were actually born.
Most couples gave the same parish - otherwise Banns were posted at Two parishes....more expense
Allan ......... researching oakes/anyon/standish/collins/hartley/barker/collins-cheshire
oakes/tipping/ellis/jones/schacht/...garston, liverpool
adams-shropshire/roberts-welshpool
merrick/lewis/stringham/nicolls-herefordshire
coxon/williamson/kay/weaver-glossop/stockport/walker-gorton
Even today when banns are read, you'll hear something like "between Edwin George Smith of the parish of St Etheldreda, Sometown and Hermione Joan Sandwich of this parish". This would be true even if Miss Sandwich hated the name Hermione and was always known as Joan.
In the days where it was common to be born, married and buried in the same village the priest would know personally whether the address declaration was correct. What's more there was no effort to marry somewhere away from home (usually the bride's home) just because it was a prettier church or more convenient for the reception venue! Jane Austen has Lydia Bennett marry from her uncle's house in London rather than her parents' in the country because of the scandal which would ensue if it were known they had been openly living together beforehand. No doubt the residence qualification would have been carefully met to make absolutely sure there could be no challenge to the legitimacy of the wedding!
if they were from a different parish though, it usually says so in the parish records. some people married in nearby towns to where they were from.
If it doesn't, at least after 1754(?) when the procedures were made more uniform, the priest was being negligent. But if the marriage was by Licence rather than banns I think there would only be a record in the parish where the wedding took place. Can anyone confirm this?
If it doesn't, at least after 1754(?) when the procedures were made more uniform, the priest was being negligent. But if the marriage was by Licence rather than banns I think there would only be a record in the parish where the wedding took place. Can anyone confirm this?
I have marriages by license that still state the parties' parishes
I have marriages by license that still state the parties' parishes
What I mean is that since there are no banns, the only local church record would be in the marriage register for the one parish. The banns books in the two (or it can be more) parishes would be silent.
What I mean is that since there are no banns, the only local church record would be in the marriage register for the one parish. The banns books in the two (or it can be more) parishes would be silent.
I think you are right - there would be no occasion to make any record in any other parish's registers/records.
These days there can be a further qualification in the banns: the groom of the parish of X, and the bride of th parish of Y, and (one or other) on the electoral roll of this parish.
Christine
Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...
Comment