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;








2















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:



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.










share|improve this question


























  • 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

















2















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:



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.










share|improve this question


























  • 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













2












2








2








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:



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.










share|improve this question
















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:



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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








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

















  • 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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4















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.






share|improve this answer



























  • 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


















4















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.






share|improve this answer

























  • 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













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
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















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









4















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.






share|improve this answer



























  • 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















4















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.






share|improve this answer



























  • 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













4














4










4









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.






share|improve this answer















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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








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

















  • 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













4















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.






share|improve this answer

























  • 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















4















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.






share|improve this answer

























  • 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













4














4










4









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.






share|improve this answer













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.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










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

















  • 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

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480