Genealogy Chat

Just a little ?final comment. I was singing at a wedding this afternoon, and asked our assistant priest (a man of some considerable priestly experience) if there were any circumstance he could think of which could give rise to such a situation. He could only imagine that there had been some problem discovered with the validity of the Licence. So I think I'll just have to go with that, unless anything else turns up. (Not holding my breath!) Christine

Thank you Olde Crone for that info - all makes sense now - must be ''the way you tell 'em''???.... Sorry about my name - please call me ''Merry'' - I will sign off thus in future! I could say what comes to mind when I see the words ''Olde Crone'' (apart from that I enjoy our banter/research, that is) - do you look like one of those three ladies at the beginning of Macbeth?? Sorry, I digress! What a pity the vicar didn't write a note in his register about this ''second'' marriage...... He must have known they were there last year, unless he had amnesia..... I have run out of ideas as to why they married twice, and I didn't have much idea in the first place!! Merry

Hi Thanks for the additional input since I've been asleep! The records I found are in images (not transcripts) of the Parish Registers - records of Weddings which took place... witnessed and signed off by the cleric. The bride and groom each have the same names, exactly, in both 2a and 2b and are described as Spinster and Widower, respectively. The only difference is that the witnesses' names are different. Christine

MMM (Can you change your board name, please, I keep thinking people are making unconvinced noises, then realise its your name). Ok, this is what I understand about underage marriages: The Church would not INSTIGATE an annulment of an under-age marriage, someone else would have to do that. As an Annulment means that the marriage has not been consummated,(among other things) the Church wouldnt want to get involved in all that mucky business, deciding whether the young couple had slept together or not, ALTHOUGH I have once seen a case where 'A Good Midwife' was called upon to examine the new bride. The marriage however, could technically be declared VOID at some future stage, but I think instigated only by the couple themselves, not some irate father. A marriage could be voided of course, if either party was under 12 (female) or under 14 (male) - except in the case of 'incomplete marriages',(children under the age of 12 and 14) but those took place much earlier than you are talking about. As there was never a legal age of consent (to sexual intercourse) until the early 1920s, this is left out of the equation anyway.Don't forget, the Church was all for encouraging marriage and would not interfere after the event without a damn great shove from someone. I remember reading recently that someone was terribly worried whether her 35 year marriage was actually legal as she had lied about her age and was under 21. Agony Aunt contacted the Registrar General who said the marriage was still legal, but if he received information from 'anyone' that the age was incorrect, he would add a note against the original entry. Hope this makes sense - I will try to find some official thingy to back up this knowledge. Olde Crone

Sorry to but in with a question for Olde Crone, but...... I am very interested in this business of the church marrying people who lied about their age and then refusing to annul the marriage, even though the couple had lied...... Was the reason that, as the marriage had probably been consumated by the time they found out about the lies, this meant that it was not in their interests to annul it?? Or something else?? My rellie had the banns read in three different churches in the 1760's. Each time the banns register has the note, ''forbid by father'' alongside. But when she turned 21 they married anyway!! Father then wrote her out of his will ''unless she does not live with her husband'' and her legacy was to be paid weekly with her brother to check the whereabouts of the husband each week before dishing out the few shillings awarded (wonder if he bothered??) I always thought that father had made a special effort considering he could have got the marriage annulled (he was well off so could have bribed??) -but perhaps he could not have done this, had the marriage gone ahead, even though the bride was underage??? I think it shortened his life expectancy though!! Shortened mine, trying to find out about the dreadful man who she was determined to marry!! (he must have been good for something?? Perhaps he had a relation with syphillis, though??) If you have fallen asleep, OC, the question is at the end of the first paragraph....... Once again, sorry to but in Christine..... MMM

I know very little about Pallotts, but is it possible that the date of 2a was the date the licence was ISSUED - no marriage took place, for whatever reason, but the couple later married by Banns, having fulfilled the residential qualifications by then. (And isnt the witness to the licence Sarah Castle, not Couskl?) A marriage is not automatically voided if one party lies about their age. Her father would have had to kick up an almighty fuss and the Church would be extremely unlikely to annul such a marriage after 24 hours (some in darkness) had elapsed, if you get my meaning! The fact that the first attempt was by licence indicates that the Vicar would have questioned the young couple about their eligibility to marry, before issuing a licence. OR - perhaps we have TWO Sarah Castles here - mother and daughter. Mother is witness to the licence, then herself marries the following year. Okay, I'll shut up. Olde Crone

I just realised I didn't ask what it said for marital status the second time round?? Bachelor and spinster?? MMM

My Gran married my granddad and had marriage blessed in two churches First registry wedding, second Catholic blessing, third Church of England blessing to please both families ,i have been told they were all on the same day, in 1919 Wales

The IGI gives a cluster of plausible candidates for Sarah's baptism - most of whom would have been underage - but not the eldest... SARAH CASTLE - 25 FEB 1787 Saint Leonards, Shoreditch SARAH CASTELL - 8 APR 1792 Saint Leonards, Shoreditch SARAH CASTLE - 8 SEP 1793 Saint Leonards, Shoreditch SARAH ELISABETH CASTLE - 5 APR 1795 Saint Leonards, Shoreditch SARAH CASLE - 17 JUL 1797 Saint Leonards, Shoreditch I think I might be into the realms of a brick wall here... Christine

The only reasons I could think of to make marriage 2a invalid would be a. Previous spouse still alive b. Bride under age and married without consent of guardian Establishing either scenario might be a challenge in Shoreditch.

Marrages 1, 2b & 3 were by Banns, but the first of the two marriages to Sarah (2a) was by Licence. Christine

Oops, I didn't notice his name the first time I read, lol I will get my time machine out and go back to ask him! MMM

Looking at the image, there's nothing to suggest it wasn't the same person who conducted the ceremony both times - Robert Crosby, Curate (i.e. the Vicar or Rector). Perhaps I should put this on the Records board and see if anyone has the relevant London Licences CD, and can look it up for me. Christine

There's been a thread on here about witnesses. The general concensus seemed to be that anyone could be a witness and of any age, so maybe you will have to think about the licence?? What about the person who conducted the wedding? (was he elligible?) MMM

Here are the 4 weddings (no funeral found)... m1 - 1808 Mary SHEPHERD, Shoreditch, St Leonard's (Pallot's Mrg Ind) 18 SEP 1808 [IGI M040801] (Banns) PR m2a - 1811 Sarah CASTLE, Shoreditch, St Leonard's (Pallot's Mrg Ind) 21 NOV 1811 (Licence; witnesses John Garth? & Sarah Couslk??) m2b - 1 SEP 1812 (Banns; witnesses: Mary Coutts & G… L…ing) [IGI M040802] both by Robert Crosby PRx2 m3 - 21 Jun 1841, St John, Wapping (Banns) PR: Lucretia ADAMS (widow. full age, 250 Wapping St, dtr of Thomas HAKE/HUKE?,carpenter) My only thought so far, is that there was some problem with either the Licence or the original ceremony - or the eligibility of the witnesses. I look forward to your thoughts! Christine

Just spent a brief afternoon in the LMA (they close at 4:45 on Fridays). Just had the time to follow up the parish records for my husband's ggg-grandfather, Harison COCKS - or his marriages, anyway. Better put the rest in a 'reply' or no-one will be able to make head or tail of it!