Time difference between banns and marriageWhat are Marriage Banns and how can I use them in my research?Were marriage certificates, granted after banns, recorded?Finding Devon parish marriage records?Why would a family baptise at a parish but not marry or bury there?Average time between birth and baptism in the Church of England?Why would Consent of Parents be needed for 1815 marriage between 26 and 33 year olds in Menheniot, Cornwall?Entering marriage banns into my database – one fact or three?Deciding between multiple birth names and dates?
Using a JoeBlow Sport pump on a presta valve
Are strlen optimizations really needed in glibc?
How can I download a file from a host I can only SSH to through another host?
Will removing shelving screws from studs damage the studs?
Why does matter stay collapsed in the core, following a supernova explosion?
Why is there not a willingness from the world to step in between Pakistan and India?
Etymology of "Talo" (Finnish for "house"). Can it be a cognate of Thalamus?
Why did the population of Bhutan drop by 70% between 2007 and 2008?
Pen test results for web application include a file from a forbidden directory that is not even used or referenced
How to force GCC to assume that a floating-point expression is non-negative?
How do I insert two edge loops equally spaced from the edges?
Did ancient peoples ever hide their treasure behind puzzles?
Why didn't Doc believe Marty was from the future?
Half filled water bottle
Are (c#) dictionaries an Anti Pattern?
Commercial company wants me to list all prior "inventions", give up everything not listed
Why does this London Underground poster from 1924 have a Star of David atop a Christmas tree?
GDPR: What happens to deleted contacts re-entered through imports
Can someone identify this unusual plane at airport?
Is it true that different variants of the same model aircraft don't require pilot retraining?
#define above static const int?
Does NASA use any type of office/groupware software and which is that?
Is a memoized pure function itself considered pure?
Unlock your Lock
Time difference between banns and marriage
What are Marriage Banns and how can I use them in my research?Were marriage certificates, granted after banns, recorded?Finding Devon parish marriage records?Why would a family baptise at a parish but not marry or bury there?Average time between birth and baptism in the Church of England?Why would Consent of Parents be needed for 1815 marriage between 26 and 33 year olds in Menheniot, Cornwall?Entering marriage banns into my database – one fact or three?Deciding between multiple birth names and dates?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I have understood that banns / marriages were a maximum of 3 months apart. So I am confused.
Take these two individuals:
- William Finsley Partridge
- Mary Elizabeth Brown
Take these banns:

The source:
Wiltshire, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1916
I have verified with an online calendar that that those Sunday dates are from November 1904.
Yet, the only actual marriage certificate entry I can find is:
- District: Salisbury
- Volume: 5A
- Page: 295
- Quarter: Jan-Mar
- Year: 1907
How is it possible that there be a gap from November 1904 to January 1907?
There is a similar discussion about this kind of problem mentioned here.
england marriage-records 1900s-decade wiltshire
add a comment |
I have understood that banns / marriages were a maximum of 3 months apart. So I am confused.
Take these two individuals:
- William Finsley Partridge
- Mary Elizabeth Brown
Take these banns:

The source:
Wiltshire, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1916
I have verified with an online calendar that that those Sunday dates are from November 1904.
Yet, the only actual marriage certificate entry I can find is:
- District: Salisbury
- Volume: 5A
- Page: 295
- Quarter: Jan-Mar
- Year: 1907
How is it possible that there be a gap from November 1904 to January 1907?
There is a similar discussion about this kind of problem mentioned here.
england marriage-records 1900s-decade wiltshire
Just a note, but for BMDs after 1837, it is always worth checking FreeBMD
– sempaiscuba
8 hours ago
@sempaiscuba Yes, I looked there too.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
1
It looks like William was in the Royal Army Medical Corps, so it's possible he was called away on duty before the marriage could take place. (Or, perhaps, that his commanding officer did not permit the marriage in 1904.) You'd probably need to find William's military records to see when he enlisted, and what his movements were.
– AndyW
7 hours ago
add a comment |
I have understood that banns / marriages were a maximum of 3 months apart. So I am confused.
Take these two individuals:
- William Finsley Partridge
- Mary Elizabeth Brown
Take these banns:

The source:
Wiltshire, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1916
I have verified with an online calendar that that those Sunday dates are from November 1904.
Yet, the only actual marriage certificate entry I can find is:
- District: Salisbury
- Volume: 5A
- Page: 295
- Quarter: Jan-Mar
- Year: 1907
How is it possible that there be a gap from November 1904 to January 1907?
There is a similar discussion about this kind of problem mentioned here.
england marriage-records 1900s-decade wiltshire
I have understood that banns / marriages were a maximum of 3 months apart. So I am confused.
Take these two individuals:
- William Finsley Partridge
- Mary Elizabeth Brown
Take these banns:

The source:
Wiltshire, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1916
I have verified with an online calendar that that those Sunday dates are from November 1904.
Yet, the only actual marriage certificate entry I can find is:
- District: Salisbury
- Volume: 5A
- Page: 295
- Quarter: Jan-Mar
- Year: 1907
How is it possible that there be a gap from November 1904 to January 1907?
There is a similar discussion about this kind of problem mentioned here.
england marriage-records 1900s-decade wiltshire
england marriage-records 1900s-decade wiltshire
edited 10 hours ago
Andrew Truckle
asked 10 hours ago
Andrew TruckleAndrew Truckle
62913 bronze badges
62913 bronze badges
Just a note, but for BMDs after 1837, it is always worth checking FreeBMD
– sempaiscuba
8 hours ago
@sempaiscuba Yes, I looked there too.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
1
It looks like William was in the Royal Army Medical Corps, so it's possible he was called away on duty before the marriage could take place. (Or, perhaps, that his commanding officer did not permit the marriage in 1904.) You'd probably need to find William's military records to see when he enlisted, and what his movements were.
– AndyW
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Just a note, but for BMDs after 1837, it is always worth checking FreeBMD
– sempaiscuba
8 hours ago
@sempaiscuba Yes, I looked there too.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
1
It looks like William was in the Royal Army Medical Corps, so it's possible he was called away on duty before the marriage could take place. (Or, perhaps, that his commanding officer did not permit the marriage in 1904.) You'd probably need to find William's military records to see when he enlisted, and what his movements were.
– AndyW
7 hours ago
Just a note, but for BMDs after 1837, it is always worth checking FreeBMD
– sempaiscuba
8 hours ago
Just a note, but for BMDs after 1837, it is always worth checking FreeBMD
– sempaiscuba
8 hours ago
@sempaiscuba Yes, I looked there too.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
@sempaiscuba Yes, I looked there too.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
1
1
It looks like William was in the Royal Army Medical Corps, so it's possible he was called away on duty before the marriage could take place. (Or, perhaps, that his commanding officer did not permit the marriage in 1904.) You'd probably need to find William's military records to see when he enlisted, and what his movements were.
– AndyW
7 hours ago
It looks like William was in the Royal Army Medical Corps, so it's possible he was called away on duty before the marriage could take place. (Or, perhaps, that his commanding officer did not permit the marriage in 1904.) You'd probably need to find William's military records to see when he enlisted, and what his movements were.
– AndyW
7 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The Marriage Act 1753, formally "An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage" ( and popularly known as Lord Hardwicke's Act), required that banns had to be called or a marriage licence obtained for a marriage to be legally valid. In fact this simply codified the existing practice within the Church of England into law. Under this statute the banns had to be read aloud on three Sundays before the wedding, in the home parish churches of both parties. No time limit was set on the time between the reading of the banns and the marriage.
The Marriage Act 1836 allowed marriages to be legally registered in buildings belonging to religious groups other than the Church of England, Jews and Quakers (the 1735 Act only recognised marriages conducted in buildings belonging to those groups), legalised civil marriage in England and Wales. It did not change the requirements for banns or licences for Church of England weddings.
The Marriage Act 1949 introduced the requirement that the marriage had to be solemnised within three months of the banns being read (section 12.2). Prior to that the time limit did not apply.
Since the banns in your case were read in November 1904, and the marriage (if it is the same couple) was solemnised in 1907, this would be acceptable under the law at that date. A delay of a little over two years between banns and marriage would certainly be unusual in my experience, but not against the law as enacted at that date.
1904 / 1907 not 1804 / 1807. There is a 9 crossed over the 8 on the banns. Does this change things?
– Andrew Truckle
9 hours ago
1
That was a typo. Corrected now.
– sempaiscuba
9 hours ago
add a comment |
The 1904 banns may have still been regarded as valid (and it would be for the officiating vicar to decide, if the marriage was to take place in a CofE church) - but there are a number of other possible scenarios to consider.
The 1907 marriage reference is only an index and doesn't indicate whether the marriage took place in a church or in a registration office - nor whether it was by banns, certificate or licence.
You may be on to something. According to the family, (this is my relatives ancestry) William and Mary had a son whom they named William Partridge Brown. But he was born in April 1905. This might scupper getting married at the church. From then on, the sons descendants were all Browns, taking on the mothers surname. But their daughter, who was born in October 1907, was Lily Elizabeth Partridge. I only just noticed the surname differences. So I think this is probably their certificate. Would be interesting in ordering it.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
It also explains why both of their baptisms was in October 1908. Same day.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
Weird, William Brown Partridge on the baptism. Yet he is known by brown. All his kids are. Going off topic now. Oops.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
@AndrewTruckle William and Mary were married by the time they baptised the children, and it might have looked strange if they had baptised William jr and Lily with different surnames. It may even have been a way to "legitimise" their son.
– AndyW
3 hours ago
@AndyW Yeah. I have managed to confirm that William jr was born out of wedlock. Then they married in 1907 and later that year had Lily. A year later they were both baptised. William jr was registered "William Brown". At baptism "William Brown Partridge". At marriage and death "William Partridge Brown". And William and Mary were married at a registry office.
– Andrew Truckle
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "467"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgenealogy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f15754%2ftime-difference-between-banns-and-marriage%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The Marriage Act 1753, formally "An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage" ( and popularly known as Lord Hardwicke's Act), required that banns had to be called or a marriage licence obtained for a marriage to be legally valid. In fact this simply codified the existing practice within the Church of England into law. Under this statute the banns had to be read aloud on three Sundays before the wedding, in the home parish churches of both parties. No time limit was set on the time between the reading of the banns and the marriage.
The Marriage Act 1836 allowed marriages to be legally registered in buildings belonging to religious groups other than the Church of England, Jews and Quakers (the 1735 Act only recognised marriages conducted in buildings belonging to those groups), legalised civil marriage in England and Wales. It did not change the requirements for banns or licences for Church of England weddings.
The Marriage Act 1949 introduced the requirement that the marriage had to be solemnised within three months of the banns being read (section 12.2). Prior to that the time limit did not apply.
Since the banns in your case were read in November 1904, and the marriage (if it is the same couple) was solemnised in 1907, this would be acceptable under the law at that date. A delay of a little over two years between banns and marriage would certainly be unusual in my experience, but not against the law as enacted at that date.
1904 / 1907 not 1804 / 1807. There is a 9 crossed over the 8 on the banns. Does this change things?
– Andrew Truckle
9 hours ago
1
That was a typo. Corrected now.
– sempaiscuba
9 hours ago
add a comment |
The Marriage Act 1753, formally "An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage" ( and popularly known as Lord Hardwicke's Act), required that banns had to be called or a marriage licence obtained for a marriage to be legally valid. In fact this simply codified the existing practice within the Church of England into law. Under this statute the banns had to be read aloud on three Sundays before the wedding, in the home parish churches of both parties. No time limit was set on the time between the reading of the banns and the marriage.
The Marriage Act 1836 allowed marriages to be legally registered in buildings belonging to religious groups other than the Church of England, Jews and Quakers (the 1735 Act only recognised marriages conducted in buildings belonging to those groups), legalised civil marriage in England and Wales. It did not change the requirements for banns or licences for Church of England weddings.
The Marriage Act 1949 introduced the requirement that the marriage had to be solemnised within three months of the banns being read (section 12.2). Prior to that the time limit did not apply.
Since the banns in your case were read in November 1904, and the marriage (if it is the same couple) was solemnised in 1907, this would be acceptable under the law at that date. A delay of a little over two years between banns and marriage would certainly be unusual in my experience, but not against the law as enacted at that date.
1904 / 1907 not 1804 / 1807. There is a 9 crossed over the 8 on the banns. Does this change things?
– Andrew Truckle
9 hours ago
1
That was a typo. Corrected now.
– sempaiscuba
9 hours ago
add a comment |
The Marriage Act 1753, formally "An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage" ( and popularly known as Lord Hardwicke's Act), required that banns had to be called or a marriage licence obtained for a marriage to be legally valid. In fact this simply codified the existing practice within the Church of England into law. Under this statute the banns had to be read aloud on three Sundays before the wedding, in the home parish churches of both parties. No time limit was set on the time between the reading of the banns and the marriage.
The Marriage Act 1836 allowed marriages to be legally registered in buildings belonging to religious groups other than the Church of England, Jews and Quakers (the 1735 Act only recognised marriages conducted in buildings belonging to those groups), legalised civil marriage in England and Wales. It did not change the requirements for banns or licences for Church of England weddings.
The Marriage Act 1949 introduced the requirement that the marriage had to be solemnised within three months of the banns being read (section 12.2). Prior to that the time limit did not apply.
Since the banns in your case were read in November 1904, and the marriage (if it is the same couple) was solemnised in 1907, this would be acceptable under the law at that date. A delay of a little over two years between banns and marriage would certainly be unusual in my experience, but not against the law as enacted at that date.
The Marriage Act 1753, formally "An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage" ( and popularly known as Lord Hardwicke's Act), required that banns had to be called or a marriage licence obtained for a marriage to be legally valid. In fact this simply codified the existing practice within the Church of England into law. Under this statute the banns had to be read aloud on three Sundays before the wedding, in the home parish churches of both parties. No time limit was set on the time between the reading of the banns and the marriage.
The Marriage Act 1836 allowed marriages to be legally registered in buildings belonging to religious groups other than the Church of England, Jews and Quakers (the 1735 Act only recognised marriages conducted in buildings belonging to those groups), legalised civil marriage in England and Wales. It did not change the requirements for banns or licences for Church of England weddings.
The Marriage Act 1949 introduced the requirement that the marriage had to be solemnised within three months of the banns being read (section 12.2). Prior to that the time limit did not apply.
Since the banns in your case were read in November 1904, and the marriage (if it is the same couple) was solemnised in 1907, this would be acceptable under the law at that date. A delay of a little over two years between banns and marriage would certainly be unusual in my experience, but not against the law as enacted at that date.
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
sempaiscubasempaiscuba
3,5881 gold badge5 silver badges25 bronze badges
3,5881 gold badge5 silver badges25 bronze badges
1904 / 1907 not 1804 / 1807. There is a 9 crossed over the 8 on the banns. Does this change things?
– Andrew Truckle
9 hours ago
1
That was a typo. Corrected now.
– sempaiscuba
9 hours ago
add a comment |
1904 / 1907 not 1804 / 1807. There is a 9 crossed over the 8 on the banns. Does this change things?
– Andrew Truckle
9 hours ago
1
That was a typo. Corrected now.
– sempaiscuba
9 hours ago
1904 / 1907 not 1804 / 1807. There is a 9 crossed over the 8 on the banns. Does this change things?
– Andrew Truckle
9 hours ago
1904 / 1907 not 1804 / 1807. There is a 9 crossed over the 8 on the banns. Does this change things?
– Andrew Truckle
9 hours ago
1
1
That was a typo. Corrected now.
– sempaiscuba
9 hours ago
That was a typo. Corrected now.
– sempaiscuba
9 hours ago
add a comment |
The 1904 banns may have still been regarded as valid (and it would be for the officiating vicar to decide, if the marriage was to take place in a CofE church) - but there are a number of other possible scenarios to consider.
The 1907 marriage reference is only an index and doesn't indicate whether the marriage took place in a church or in a registration office - nor whether it was by banns, certificate or licence.
You may be on to something. According to the family, (this is my relatives ancestry) William and Mary had a son whom they named William Partridge Brown. But he was born in April 1905. This might scupper getting married at the church. From then on, the sons descendants were all Browns, taking on the mothers surname. But their daughter, who was born in October 1907, was Lily Elizabeth Partridge. I only just noticed the surname differences. So I think this is probably their certificate. Would be interesting in ordering it.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
It also explains why both of their baptisms was in October 1908. Same day.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
Weird, William Brown Partridge on the baptism. Yet he is known by brown. All his kids are. Going off topic now. Oops.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
@AndrewTruckle William and Mary were married by the time they baptised the children, and it might have looked strange if they had baptised William jr and Lily with different surnames. It may even have been a way to "legitimise" their son.
– AndyW
3 hours ago
@AndyW Yeah. I have managed to confirm that William jr was born out of wedlock. Then they married in 1907 and later that year had Lily. A year later they were both baptised. William jr was registered "William Brown". At baptism "William Brown Partridge". At marriage and death "William Partridge Brown". And William and Mary were married at a registry office.
– Andrew Truckle
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The 1904 banns may have still been regarded as valid (and it would be for the officiating vicar to decide, if the marriage was to take place in a CofE church) - but there are a number of other possible scenarios to consider.
The 1907 marriage reference is only an index and doesn't indicate whether the marriage took place in a church or in a registration office - nor whether it was by banns, certificate or licence.
You may be on to something. According to the family, (this is my relatives ancestry) William and Mary had a son whom they named William Partridge Brown. But he was born in April 1905. This might scupper getting married at the church. From then on, the sons descendants were all Browns, taking on the mothers surname. But their daughter, who was born in October 1907, was Lily Elizabeth Partridge. I only just noticed the surname differences. So I think this is probably their certificate. Would be interesting in ordering it.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
It also explains why both of their baptisms was in October 1908. Same day.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
Weird, William Brown Partridge on the baptism. Yet he is known by brown. All his kids are. Going off topic now. Oops.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
@AndrewTruckle William and Mary were married by the time they baptised the children, and it might have looked strange if they had baptised William jr and Lily with different surnames. It may even have been a way to "legitimise" their son.
– AndyW
3 hours ago
@AndyW Yeah. I have managed to confirm that William jr was born out of wedlock. Then they married in 1907 and later that year had Lily. A year later they were both baptised. William jr was registered "William Brown". At baptism "William Brown Partridge". At marriage and death "William Partridge Brown". And William and Mary were married at a registry office.
– Andrew Truckle
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The 1904 banns may have still been regarded as valid (and it would be for the officiating vicar to decide, if the marriage was to take place in a CofE church) - but there are a number of other possible scenarios to consider.
The 1907 marriage reference is only an index and doesn't indicate whether the marriage took place in a church or in a registration office - nor whether it was by banns, certificate or licence.
The 1904 banns may have still been regarded as valid (and it would be for the officiating vicar to decide, if the marriage was to take place in a CofE church) - but there are a number of other possible scenarios to consider.
The 1907 marriage reference is only an index and doesn't indicate whether the marriage took place in a church or in a registration office - nor whether it was by banns, certificate or licence.
answered 9 hours ago
AntonyMAntonyM
1,0815 silver badges5 bronze badges
1,0815 silver badges5 bronze badges
You may be on to something. According to the family, (this is my relatives ancestry) William and Mary had a son whom they named William Partridge Brown. But he was born in April 1905. This might scupper getting married at the church. From then on, the sons descendants were all Browns, taking on the mothers surname. But their daughter, who was born in October 1907, was Lily Elizabeth Partridge. I only just noticed the surname differences. So I think this is probably their certificate. Would be interesting in ordering it.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
It also explains why both of their baptisms was in October 1908. Same day.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
Weird, William Brown Partridge on the baptism. Yet he is known by brown. All his kids are. Going off topic now. Oops.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
@AndrewTruckle William and Mary were married by the time they baptised the children, and it might have looked strange if they had baptised William jr and Lily with different surnames. It may even have been a way to "legitimise" their son.
– AndyW
3 hours ago
@AndyW Yeah. I have managed to confirm that William jr was born out of wedlock. Then they married in 1907 and later that year had Lily. A year later they were both baptised. William jr was registered "William Brown". At baptism "William Brown Partridge". At marriage and death "William Partridge Brown". And William and Mary were married at a registry office.
– Andrew Truckle
2 hours ago
add a comment |
You may be on to something. According to the family, (this is my relatives ancestry) William and Mary had a son whom they named William Partridge Brown. But he was born in April 1905. This might scupper getting married at the church. From then on, the sons descendants were all Browns, taking on the mothers surname. But their daughter, who was born in October 1907, was Lily Elizabeth Partridge. I only just noticed the surname differences. So I think this is probably their certificate. Would be interesting in ordering it.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
It also explains why both of their baptisms was in October 1908. Same day.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
Weird, William Brown Partridge on the baptism. Yet he is known by brown. All his kids are. Going off topic now. Oops.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
@AndrewTruckle William and Mary were married by the time they baptised the children, and it might have looked strange if they had baptised William jr and Lily with different surnames. It may even have been a way to "legitimise" their son.
– AndyW
3 hours ago
@AndyW Yeah. I have managed to confirm that William jr was born out of wedlock. Then they married in 1907 and later that year had Lily. A year later they were both baptised. William jr was registered "William Brown". At baptism "William Brown Partridge". At marriage and death "William Partridge Brown". And William and Mary were married at a registry office.
– Andrew Truckle
2 hours ago
You may be on to something. According to the family, (this is my relatives ancestry) William and Mary had a son whom they named William Partridge Brown. But he was born in April 1905. This might scupper getting married at the church. From then on, the sons descendants were all Browns, taking on the mothers surname. But their daughter, who was born in October 1907, was Lily Elizabeth Partridge. I only just noticed the surname differences. So I think this is probably their certificate. Would be interesting in ordering it.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
You may be on to something. According to the family, (this is my relatives ancestry) William and Mary had a son whom they named William Partridge Brown. But he was born in April 1905. This might scupper getting married at the church. From then on, the sons descendants were all Browns, taking on the mothers surname. But their daughter, who was born in October 1907, was Lily Elizabeth Partridge. I only just noticed the surname differences. So I think this is probably their certificate. Would be interesting in ordering it.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
It also explains why both of their baptisms was in October 1908. Same day.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
It also explains why both of their baptisms was in October 1908. Same day.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
Weird, William Brown Partridge on the baptism. Yet he is known by brown. All his kids are. Going off topic now. Oops.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
Weird, William Brown Partridge on the baptism. Yet he is known by brown. All his kids are. Going off topic now. Oops.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
@AndrewTruckle William and Mary were married by the time they baptised the children, and it might have looked strange if they had baptised William jr and Lily with different surnames. It may even have been a way to "legitimise" their son.
– AndyW
3 hours ago
@AndrewTruckle William and Mary were married by the time they baptised the children, and it might have looked strange if they had baptised William jr and Lily with different surnames. It may even have been a way to "legitimise" their son.
– AndyW
3 hours ago
@AndyW Yeah. I have managed to confirm that William jr was born out of wedlock. Then they married in 1907 and later that year had Lily. A year later they were both baptised. William jr was registered "William Brown". At baptism "William Brown Partridge". At marriage and death "William Partridge Brown". And William and Mary were married at a registry office.
– Andrew Truckle
2 hours ago
@AndyW Yeah. I have managed to confirm that William jr was born out of wedlock. Then they married in 1907 and later that year had Lily. A year later they were both baptised. William jr was registered "William Brown". At baptism "William Brown Partridge". At marriage and death "William Partridge Brown". And William and Mary were married at a registry office.
– Andrew Truckle
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Genealogy & Family History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgenealogy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f15754%2ftime-difference-between-banns-and-marriage%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Just a note, but for BMDs after 1837, it is always worth checking FreeBMD
– sempaiscuba
8 hours ago
@sempaiscuba Yes, I looked there too.
– Andrew Truckle
8 hours ago
1
It looks like William was in the Royal Army Medical Corps, so it's possible he was called away on duty before the marriage could take place. (Or, perhaps, that his commanding officer did not permit the marriage in 1904.) You'd probably need to find William's military records to see when he enlisted, and what his movements were.
– AndyW
7 hours ago