OLDHAM ST MARY'S - Did they Marry ?

[tribi]

I have a copy of Banns dated January 1840 between THOMAS HOLT and MARY INGHAM at St Mary's Oldham. Lancashire Online Parish Clerk lists marriages for these dates but no record of a marriage taking place. Same with BMD Records, nothing for this couple. I believe that after banns, the marriage had to take place within 3 months. So where are they ? Did they marry at all ? ANY IDEAS ?

tribi

[notanotherminer]

Did the banns state that either Thomas or Mary was not from that Parish? There is a possible marriage which took plave in Todmorden, Yorkshire.

Holt Thomas Mar qtr 1840 Todmorden vol 21 page 415
Indexed on the same page is Mary Ingham

Bear in mind that if the bride and groom are from different parishes banns have to be called in both places so it does not necessarily follow that having the banns from one church means that was the church where they married.

[notanotherminer]

If you have access to Ancestry and their West Yorkshire marriages you can download a copy of the marriage register entry.

The couple married on 01 Mar 1840 at Todmorden, both of full age, and both resident at the time at Gauxholme. Thomas was a weaver as was his father James Holt. Mary's father was Thomas Ingham, a plasterer.

Given the date I think it would be too much of a coincidence for this not to be your couple. It is possible that either James or Mary were originally from Oldham which is why the banns were read there. Todmorden is almost on the Lancashire border and according to the marriage entry in 1840 it was part of the parish of Rochdale so the 2 places were not that far apart.

[tribi]

Hallo notanother miner,
Thanks for your reply. I do have a copy of that marriage, but there are differences and coincidences. Mary Ingham (nee Howarth )had previously been married. Cert. states spinster and Father Thomas Ingham.
Mary Howarths father WAS named Thomas HOWARTH and he was a Plasterer.
Thomas Holt's father WAS named James but at the time of this marriage was an Innkeeper in Rochdale.

Both parties came from Rochdale. Mary from Wardle and Thomas from Wardleworth. So I am exploring all possibilities, and one of them is that they did not marry at all.
There should be some record on the BMD Registers for this couple even if they did marry in another parish, but can't find any at all, apart from one at Bury, but there were lots of Holts living on the Bury/Rochdale border.

tribi

[notanotherminer]

There should be some record on the BMD Registers for this couple even if they did marry in another parish, but can't find any at all, apart from one at Bury, but there were lots of Holts living on the Bury/Rochdale border.

I'm sorry but I'm confused now. Surely, that is the record in post 3 so I don't understand what you mean when you state that there should be some record on the BMD registers?

[pippycat]

I totally agree with you notanotherminer - so we're both confused now!



Could this be Mary's 1st marriage?

Mary Haworth /spouse: John Ingham /married: 13 March 1835 at St. Mary, Bury, Lancs
I found this on Familysearch though cannot find it on either FMP or A*

Also, if Mary Ingham (nee Howarth) was previously married, how can her father be Thomas Ingham?

Rebecca

[notanotherminer]

We really need to know how tribi arrived back at the previous marriage he mentioned and how he knows that in 1840 James Holt was a innkeeper. Presumably he has documentation that he didn't mention previously.

[notanotherminer]

Should you require any further evidence that points to this marriage being the right one I have taken another look at the register and the witnesses were Henry Howarth and John Shackleton.

I know that if these were my ancestors I'd be satisified that I had the right marriage. The only puzzling factor is the fact that Mary's father is shown as Thomas Ingham but there could be a number of explanations for this, one of which could simply have been an incorrect assumption on the part of the vicar.

It might be an idea to try and find out who Henry Howarth was.

[tribi]

Sorry to have confused everyone, will try to make things a little clearer.
Mary Howarth (father Thomas Howarth - Plasterer) married Lawrence Ingham at St Chads Rochdale in 1832 (aged 16)
By 1841 she is with Thomas Holt (son James was born 1839/1840, daughter Rachel and Sarah born 1842 & 1844). This is the marriage I am looking for.


Searched burials for Lawrence Ingham, only one aged 57 and I found out that he had been married to an Ann.

Mary and Lawrence had son Thomas. When Thomas marries he gives his fathers Occupation as Boiler Maker.

Lawrence Ingham marries a Betsey Staling in York in 1840 Occupation Boiler Maker. On Census Lawrence states born in Newchurch in Rossendale, which is correct.
Did Lawrence commit Bigamy ??

Apart from the marriage in Todmorden of a MARY INGHAM & THOMAS HOLT , their are two more to check the one in Oldham St Mary's(can find copy of Banns only which I found on FamilySearch - no trace of the actual marriage taking place is found on any BMD site ) and one in Bury.
If they married Bigamously then they would not do it in their own Parish of Rochdale surely ?

I have searched for Henry Howarth, but can find no connection.

Hope this makes things clearer.

tribi

[notanotherminer]

I'd say that the points you've raised explain some of the anomalies.

If Mary and Lawrence had separated and both had wanted to remarry consider the following:

1. Mary would have needed to maintain that she was single or widowed in order to remarry. Saying she was single would not have left her open to questioning.

2. By claiming to be single she would have had no choice other than to make sure that she gave the same surname for her father. However, she would and did give the correct forename and occupation for him.

3. It would explain why they married in Todmorden. Forget about Rochdale, this was the wider Parish which according to Genuki contained over 80 villages and townships. It would have been very easy to go to another village within that Parish and be in a place where no-one knew them. By crossing the border into Yorkshire I'd say that they were hoping to marry quietly with no chance of their union being challenged.

If you still choose to discard this marriage it is your prerogative to do so but the evidence seems to be stacked firmly in favour of of it being the correct one.

You still haven't told us exactly what is stated in the banns. I assume that you have seen the original and are not relying on a transcription.