PDA

View Full Version : Found a marriage ... but I haven't!



Wendus
12-11-2006, 10:09 AM
For ages I've been looking for a particular marriage, and at last found mention of it on the LDS website. The only source given for the information was a Batch number of I033463. Armed with the knowledge of the exact date of the marriage, I tried to find it in the England & Wales marriage index, but it doesn't appear to be there! Try as I might, I can't find it anywhere else, and so cannot get a reference number for the certificate.

I wonder if anyone out there can help?
The marriage was between Emma Wright and Robert Dadd, and took place in Lambeth, Surrey, on 6th March 1859.

I'd be really grateful for any help or advice.

Many thanks.

Wendy

Peter Goodey
12-11-2006, 11:52 AM
I'm afraid I've never come across anyone who understands IGI "I" batches. LDS don't understand them, or if they do they're not saying.

Why not ask LDS? If they get enough queries perhaps they'll come clean.

If you look through that batch, some marriages are in the GRO index but not the one you want!

If you're reasonably certain that Lambeth is right you could try the local register office and see if you get the brush off.

Or in desperation, try ordering a 3 year search fom GRO.

If we knew what "I" batches are, you might be able to try a parish register.

Wendus
14-11-2006, 5:33 PM
Thanks for your reply Peter, and yes, everything really is very confusing!

I've sent an e-mail to Southwark local studies department, to see if they can shed any light on things, but I'm not too optimistic at the moment.

Can you think of any explanation as to how the record was obviously accessed by the LDS, yet doesn't appear in the England & Wales index? Could it be that the couple were married somewhere other than in a church? I doubt that it would've been in a Register Office because the records would be available, but what about a Chapel?

I spoke to someone in our local Family History Centre, and he didn't sound too hopeful about the people in Salt Lake City having any answers re the batch number or the source. Really inspires confidence, doesn't it!

I'll let you know if I get any further with this puzzle.

Thanks again for your interest.

Wendy

Wendus
14-11-2006, 5:40 PM
Should have added this to my last message:

In case there was a typing error during the transcription, I've also tried looking for this marriage in other possible date combinations. I know for a fact it couldn't be 1869. I've tried Mar 1858, May 1859 and May 1858, still with no luck. It couldn't have been in the 1840s as both parties would've been way too young.

The search continues!

Mutley
14-11-2006, 6:36 PM
Wendy,
I looked for your couple on the complete BMD and you are right they are not there.
I then read the help bit in Family search and it said you can type in the number in the catalogue and it will take you to where the records are kept. I had several attempts but finally came to a page that said:

Burnt deed books [transcripts] 1778-1863 General index to deeds
The original deed books were badly damaged by fire during the Civil War. These deed books are titled "Burnt deed books" and were re-recorded (transcribed) from the original books in 1884. The dates listed here are the original date of recording.

Microfilm of original records at the Rockingham County Courthouse in Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Below is the link but I am not sure if it will take you there. Try it.
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=386882&disp=Burnt+deed+books+%5Btranscripts%5D%2C+17%20%2 0&columns=*,0,0

What on earth this has to do with Lambeth I have no idea unless the batch number and the film number are two completely different things |banghead|
Mutley.

Mythology
14-11-2006, 9:57 PM
Assuming that the LDS have not had a funny five minutes and thrown a load of speculative entries into a genuine batch, this appears to be even more of a mess than most of the GRO index.

I don't have an answer for you, Mutley, but I *suspect* that you might be on the right track with the chapel suggestion - or chapels, plural, maybe - and that somebody dropped a load of loose papers on the floor, mixed them up and got muddled as to which ones they'd copied and which they hadn't!

This will be a long one in bits - bear with me.

(Edit - and don't bother reading it, 'cos Wendus got the answer part way through me pasting bits in!)

Mythology
14-11-2006, 10:05 PM
Now, I started by trying to establish which GRO page numbers we should be looking at, the theory being that as yours is 6 March 1859, if I extracted all marriages in the first fortnight of March from that batch, we could look at the page numbers for those and see what, if anything, we could deduce.

It was immediately obvious that there are only two dates in the first fortnight of March - the 6th and the 13th. On checking, the previous date is 27 February.
So, consulting the calendar, all these marriages took place on a Sunday.

I extracted the 27 February ones too, tried to put page numbers to them, and found that others outside this date range cropped up on the same pages. This is what I ended up with starting from page 485, this being (with one exception that I will note in the "missing" list later) the first page on which any of the 27 February, 6 March and 13 March marriages appears.

Mythology
14-11-2006, 10:07 PM
485 - 20 Feb John Winger & Maria Gubby
485 - 27 Feb John James Williams & Eliza Ann Lockyer
486 - 27 Feb George Ambrose Canler (Canter) & Isabella Kilbey
486 - 27 Feb George Dunbar & Mary Jones
487 - 20 Feb John Bullions & Sarah Sophia Gill
487 - 27 Feb James Laws & Mary Ann Hicks
488 - 30 Jan George Andrews & Letitia Stammers
488 - 20 Feb George Shore & Eliza Mary Bourn
489 - 20 Feb David Perkins & Elizabeth McDonald
(489 - date unknown, Thomas Homan & Sarah Richardson not in IGI batch)
490 - 06 Feb George Elsley & Sarah Athawes Copperthwait
490 - 27 Feb Edward Johnson & Salome Hurren Roan
491 - 16 Jan John Henry Lee & Martha McLean
491 - 27 Feb William Strong & Emma Lynch
(more to come)

Mythology
14-11-2006, 10:11 PM
492 - 20 Feb Thomas Charles Leigh & Mary Ann Lambert
492 - 27 Feb Lawrence Penton & Emily Ann Siller
493 - 02 Jan Edward Godfrey & Elizabeth Rudduck
493 - 06 Mar Henry John Cragg & Mary Ann Nicholson
494 - 06 Mar James Richard Caroline & Mary Ann Condron
494 - 06 Mar Joseph Pritchard & Catherine Shean
495 - 06 Mar George Purvey & Sarah Mitchell
495 - 06 Mar Charles Wagland & Sarah Emily Burton
496 - 27 Feb George Osborne & Phillis White
496 - 06 Mar James White & Harriet Finch
497 - 13 Feb John Matthews & Eleanor Wightman
497 - 27 Feb John Quincey & Ellen Quinn
498 - 06 Mar Robert Harris & Elizabeth Bates
498 - 06 Mar Robert Nixon & Sarah Atkinson Garnett
(more to come)

Mythology
14-11-2006, 10:12 PM
499 - 06 Mar Octavius Spedding Thomas & Ann Bownes
499 - 06 Mar William Woodrow & Maria Baynham
500 - 20 Feb James Bairnsfather & Ann Barnett
500 - 20 Feb James George Walker & Fanny Isabella Howard
501 - 20 Feb William Calcot Knell & Maria Church
501 - 06 Mar William John Barnaby & Susannah Groves
502 - 20 Feb William John Jackson & Elizabeth Honour
502 - 27 Feb William Henry Cowley & Eliza Frances Jarman
503 - 27 Feb Richard Elam & Matilda Pratt
503 - 06 Mar William Charles Gray & Ellen Creed
504 - 27 Feb William Edmunds & Elizabeth Bayley
504 - 13 Mar William Garling & Jane Coulman
505 - 06 Mar Charles Lewis & Harriet Apthorp
505 - 06 Mar Alexander Thomas Norvell & Eliza Lawton
(more to come)

Mythology
14-11-2006, 10:15 PM
506 - 13 Mar George Botten & Emma Pay
506 - 13 Mar William Moorhouse & Eliza Catchesides

that's the last of the ones that includes a marriage on 27 February, 6 March, or 13 March. We then get
507 - 20 Feb William Rowe Mills & Mary Ann Sertin
507 - ?? Presumably one entry blank

508 - no matches on FreeBMD, presumably blank page

509 - Sarah Fox, James Haslett, Samuel Mundy, Grace Olive Robinson
(presumably different register, none of the above on IGI)

(Cuppa time ;) )

Wendus
14-11-2006, 10:17 PM
I take back everything I said about the LDS people in Salt Lake City! I e-mailed them this evening, explained the story, and asking about the Batch number. Within just a few minutes, I received a reply, giving the relevant film number and the fact that it related to St Mary's Church, Lambeth!

I couldn't believe it! I now have information enough to book a reader at my local Family History Centre and look at the film. Seems it's the Parish records from St Mary's, and includes: Marriages 1858-1860.

Still doesn't explain why the marriage doesn't show up in any other database, but it's a big step in the right direction. Thank you LDS people!

For interest, the LDS film number is 1041668, and the relevant FHL British Film number is 1041653.

Many thanks for all your input, I appreciate it.

Wendy

Mythology
14-11-2006, 10:33 PM
OK - that's that sorted so I'll scratch the rest of my investigating and theorising! :D

Peter Goodey
14-11-2006, 10:41 PM
it related to St Mary's Church, Lambeth
Congratulations on getting an answer out of them.

The nest question is why on earth don't they show that information in the record!

BTW perhaps if you let Hugh Wallis know, he'll update his website

Mutley
14-11-2006, 10:44 PM
I'm with you Myth,
But I would still like to know where the Batch number of I033463 comes into the story :confused:
Mutley

Wendus
15-11-2006, 8:13 AM
Myth, I really appreciate all the work you've been doing, and only wish I had your brain-power!

However, you said "...sorted...", but it isn't yet, it's only one step forward. Will I still be able to get a marriage certificate if I don't have the necessary references? And I'm still curious to know why the marriage isn't included in any other database!

I am, of course, assuming that the marriage itself did take place, because in later years Emma is described as Robert's widow, but if the Parish records refer only to the Banns, then perhaps the marriage never happened. Although this theory is probably wrong, it could explain why we can't find any reference to it anywhere else.

I'll let you know what I find at the Family History Centre. Meanwhile, please accept my very grateful thanks for all your hard work on my behalf, you really are a star.

Wendy

Peter Goodey
15-11-2006, 10:02 AM
I'll let you know what I find at the Family History Centre
I hope you'll let us know what you find out. It will be interesting to know what was going on here.

If you get stuck, feel free to drop me a line. St Mary Lambeth is beginning to feel like an old friend. But I'm not sure if it's the sort of friend I really want ;) .

Trivia time: The churchyard of St Mary's contains the graves of several famous people including William Bligh (of the Bounty), a number of Archbishops of Canterbury and the Tradescant family of pioneering horticulturists. The church building is now occupied by the National Museum of Garden History.

Elly
15-11-2006, 11:21 PM
Will I still be able to get a marriage certificate if I don't have the necessary references?

If the marriage did actually take place at St Mary Lambeth and yet cannot be found in the GRO index, you should be able to get a certificate from Lambeth Register Office, especially it you tell them the difficulty you have had. Many London offices will no longer supply certs for FH purposes, but Lambeth are helpful in this respect.

Register Office
Lambeth Town Hall
London
SW2 1RW
Phone: 020 7926 9420
registeroffice@lambeth.gov.uk

Peter, IMHO the gardening museum sits uncomfortably in the church, as does the cafe in the graveyard, and it does no service to the tombs of Blyth and Tradescant. It's a crying shame.

Elly

Mythology
15-11-2006, 11:33 PM
Simple things first ...

"Many London offices will no longer supply certs for FH purposes, but Lambeth are helpful in this respect."

Thank you, Elly - that's worth knowing. :)

(I confess that I've basically given up with London Register Offices due to their generally unhelpful, unco-operative and sometimes downright rude attitude - it's nice to know that there's at least one exception, and I may need them!)

Mythology
15-11-2006, 11:40 PM
Now, back to you, Wendus ...

"However, you said "...sorted...", but it isn't yet, it's only one step forward. Will I still be able to get a marriage certificate if I don't have the necessary references? And I'm still curious to know why the marriage isn't included in any other database!"

OK, the certificate question has been answered. Furthermore, if it is indeed in the St Mary Lambeth register, we have the exact date so it shouldn't take too much effort to find it. Either tomorrow (Thursday) or Friday I will be at the London Metropolitan Archives, so I will take a look.

Mythology
15-11-2006, 11:50 PM
Assuming that the LDS info is correct, it ought to be the marriage register not the banns register because they said "Parish records from St Mary's, and includes: Marriages 1858-1860."

Marriage registers wholly in that period:
1858 September - 1859 April
1859 April - 1859 November
1859 November - 1860 June
so those three combined make an 1858-1860 batch, possibly with 1860 June - 1860 December too, I haven't checked the start and finish dates of the LDS batch.

Banns register: 1858 September - 1861 June, so doesn't fit the 1858-1860 description.

Mythology
15-11-2006, 11:56 PM
As to why it's not in any other database, that's because .... errr .... well, there isn't really any other actual database. :D

Everything except the parish register entries on the IGI is derived from the same thing - the GRO index. FreeBMD is a partial transcript of the GRO index, turned into a handy searchable database, but if it isn't listed in the GRO index in the first place, it isn't going to turn up on FreeBMD either - their transcribers don't have special privileged access to extra info from locally held records that we mere mortals can't find online, they just have the same set of index images that we can look at to work from. And the Ancestry version is just a revamped version of FreeBMD.

Mythology
16-11-2006, 12:04 AM
It is fairly well known that the GRO index is a complete shambles - books have been written about it. Add in the generally unhelpful attitude of London Register Offices (no, not you, Lambeth - you've just been awarded a couple of stars) and when it comes to missing entries in the index, life is not easy!

In many parts of the country, not only do we find that local offices are more willing to investigate, but there are alternatives to look at - databases created from the locally held copies, probably less liable to errors and omissions. I make a fair bit of use of the Cambridgeshire one, have used the Cheshire and West Midlands ones too, so there are three that I can think of off the top of my head - but there's nothing like that for London.

Mythology
16-11-2006, 12:14 AM
London often suffers in this respect, because of the sheer size of it. Let's take the nearest census year to your 1859 marriage, the 1861 census, and look at some population figures. We'll take England and Wales, as that's what the GRO index covers, rather than the UK as a whole:
England and Wales - 20,066,224
Towns with a population over 200,000:
Leeds 207,165
Birmingham 296,076
Manchester 357,979
Liverpool 443,938 and ...
London 2,803,989
that's over twice the number of the next four biggest places added together, roughly 14% of the population, nearly 1 in 7, living in London.
A massive indexing task for local records - are we really surprised that nobody's taken it on?

Mythology
16-11-2006, 12:29 AM
While being fairly philosophical about the failings of an index that is known to be incomplete and full of clerical errors, like Peter, I'm intrigued as to actually what goes on here.

Obviously, if it's St Mary, Lambeth, then my "number of independent chapels tacked on at the end and lost / not indexed / dropped on the floor and muddled" theory goes out of the window, but ...

As part of my digging, just sticking to those three Sundays, 27 February, 6 March and 13 March, there were thirty-one marriages listed by the LDS which I could not find in the GRO index - that's a heck of a lot missing on just three days!

Mythology
16-11-2006, 12:30 AM
27 Feb James Bateley & Mary Ann Grofsmith (Grossmith?)
27 Feb Edward Boulton & Hannah Brooks
27 Feb Daniel Brant & Ann Tucker
27 Feb Stephen Cuthbert & Maria Hall
27 Feb John James Elwell & Mary Ann Mann
27 Feb Herbert Thomas Handley & Catherine Rosewell
27 Feb Joseph James Jameson & Elizabeth Hart
27 Feb John Shearlock & Hannah Fewkes
27 Feb George Windover & Hannah Watson

Mythology
16-11-2006, 12:33 AM
06 Mar Thomas Clarke & Emily Frances Robinson
06 Mar George Cull & Elizabeth Charnock
06 Mar Robert Dadd & Emma Wright
06 Mar Henry Davies & Sarah Eliza Chapple
06 Mar Robert Foster & Eliza Reeve
06 Mar David Green & Ellen Pegg
06 Mar John Hewitt & Amy Brown
06 Mar George Charles Hooper & Jane Dunn
06 Mar Alfred Colin Parker & Sarah Wilkinson
06 Mar John Edward Percival & Eliza Phoebe Jones
06 Mar George Seal & Mary Richardson
06 Mar Clare Bly Woolsey & Julia Cood

Mythology
16-11-2006, 12:38 AM
13 Mar John Appleby & Susan Wigzell
13 Mar John Brennan & Ellen Coghlan
13 Mar George William Canham & Mary Chalmack
13 Mar Henry Power Clark & Maria Bushnell
13 Mar Thomas Condie & Jane Strutton
13 Mar George Henderson & Margaret Emma Pearce Smith
13 Mar Charles Piper & Ann Adelaide Ayres
13 Mar John Scott & Ann Bilbrough
13 Mar Richard Tunnicliff & Aann (Ann, Anna?) Dixon
13 Mar Henry Winsper & Mary Ann Skellington

And possibly also missing is
27 Feb Edward Reeves Player & Emma Buckle
though, as the whole thing appears to be a mess anyway, I suspect that a plain Edward Player with Emma Buckle as one of the matches is that one rather than a coincidence of names, even though the page number (321) is way out of the range and the other two people listed with this reference are not in this IGI batch.

Elly
16-11-2006, 1:14 AM
Of the 31 that you list for those three dates, I find (at random) that three (and a half) are in the GRO under Jun Qtr 1859 instead of Mar Qtr:

27 Feb John James Elwell & Mary Ann Mann
06 Mar George Seal & Mary Richardson
06 Mar David Green & Ellen Pegg
13 Mar John Appleby ...

Did someone just index a bundle of late quarterly returns?

Elly

Elly
16-11-2006, 2:29 AM
I have found most of these marriages in the GRO, but unfortunately not yet the marriage you actually need. Given the evidence so far, I would say the chances are that the marriage you want is going to be in the PR for the date given in the IGI.

If the IGI dates are correct, these GRO entries are all indexing cockups of one sort or another. The vast majority have been indexed as Jun Qtr instead of Mar Qtr. This may be due to the late submission of quarterly returns by the clergy, or the loss (and subsequent retrieval) of a bundle of same by the GRO after the Mar Qtr had been indexed.

This Jun Qtr 1859 of the GRO index is in a very poor state anyway -- handwritten, with doubtful spelling and plenty of unreadable page numbers, which of course means that spouses are not properly matched. So it's not surprising some surnames have been missed or mistranscribed by FreeBMD and other projects.

Mike Foster would have a field-day!

I will copy the list in a separate message below, with the index refs as found (hope this works).

Elly

Elly
16-11-2006, 2:35 AM
27 Feb James Bateley & Mary Ann Grofsmith (Grossmith?) Mar Qtr 1860
27 Feb Edward Boulton & Hannah Brooks Jun Qtr 1859
27 Feb Daniel Brant & Ann Tucker [as Briant] Jun Qtr 1859
27 Feb Stephen Cuthbert & Maria Hall Mar Qtr 1872 (yes 72)
27 Feb John James Elwell & Mary Ann Mann Jun Qtr 1859
27 Feb Herbert Thomas Handley & Catherine Rosewell Jun Qtr AND Sep qtr 1862 [groom only but with 2 different brides, not this one!]
27 Feb Joseph James Jameson & Elizabeth Hart Dec qtr 1861
27 Feb John Shearlock & Hannah Fewkes Jun Qtr 1859
27 Feb George Windover & Hannah Watson Mar Qtr 1860 ISLINGTON
06 Mar Thomas Clarke & Emily Frances Robinson Jun Qtr 1859
06 Mar George Cull & Elizabeth Charnock Jun Qtr 1859
06 Mar Robert Dadd & Emma Wright NOT FOUND
06 Mar Henry Davies & Sarah Eliza Chapple Jun Qtr 1859
06 Mar Robert Foster & Eliza Reeve Jun Qtr 1859
06 Mar David Green & Ellen Pegg Jun Qtr 1859
06 Mar John Hewitt & Amy Brown NOT FOUND
06 Mar George Charles Hooper & Jane Dunn Jun Qtr 1859
06 Mar Alfred Colin Parker & Sarah Wilkinson NOT FOUND
06 Mar John Edward Percival & Eliza Phoebe Jones NOT FOUND
06 Mar George Seal & Mary Richardson Jun Qtr 1859
06 Mar Clare Bly Woolsey & Julia Cood Jun Qtr 1859
13 Mar John Appleby & Susan Wigzell Jun Qtr 1859 [groom only]
13 Mar John Brennan & Ellen Coghlan Sep Qtr 1859 [as Coughlan]
13 Mar George William Canham & Mary Chalmack Jun Qtr 1859
13 Mar Henry Power Clark & Maria Bushnell Jun 1859
13 Mar Thomas Condie & Jane Strutton Jun Qtr 1859 [groom only]
13 Mar George Henderson & Margaret Emma Pearce Smith Jun Qtr 1859
13 Mar Charles Piper & Ann Adelaide Ayres Jun Qtr 1859 [groom only]
13 Mar John Scott & Ann Bilbrough Jun Qtr 1859
13 Mar Richard Tunnicliff & Aann (Ann, Anna?) Dixon Jun Qtr 1859 [groom only]
13 Mar Henry Winsper & Mary Ann Skellington Jun Qtr 1859 [bride only, as Skillington]
END

Mythology
16-11-2006, 9:16 AM
Quick note ('cos going out) just to say ...

Well done, Elly. :)
I had only got as far as looking at the GRO index for the March quarter when Wendus got the answer from the LDS - thought I'd see what the register says before I did any more prodding, but you've saved me the effort of the next stage.

"Mike Foster would have a field-day!"

Indeed !

Mythology
16-11-2006, 1:09 PM
And quick note from the LMA if I can get past the 'Server Busy' messages ...

Although it shouldn't be by the date span, it is the banns book not the marriage register - as per Elly's findings re June Q instead of March Q, when I looked at the register, a number of them turned up on later dates. The Robert Dadd & Emma Wright one is the only one on that page of the banns book that does not have a little cross next to it. I will print out a few pages and check later at home but I assume that the system is that the cross indicates that the marriage subsequently took place - no cross, no marriage.

Elly
16-11-2006, 4:37 PM
Excellent find! So another anti-GRO theory of mine bites the dust ...

But if no marriage, why not? Pre-existing marriage? Lack of consent? Cold feet? Married elsewhere? Should be a fun piece of research for Wendus anyway.

Elly

Mythology
17-11-2006, 1:25 AM
Yes, having gone through the three lists for ones for which the banns were first published (this being the date the LDS have used) on 27 February, 6 March and 13 March, that cross or no cross is basically the system. There's actually slightly more to it than that, because the banns are valid for three months but the corresponding marriage register finishes on 24 April, so what he's done is ...
Marriage which is in that register - cross, plus date of marriage written underneath.
Marriage not in that register but within three months - cross, but marriage date not given.
No marriage within three months - no cross, irrespective of whether or not they later decided that they would get married after all, because new banns would have to be published so these ones are irrelevant and there's no point in going back and marking them.

Mythology
17-11-2006, 1:40 AM
That, of course, explains things like you finding George Windover and Hannah Watson in Islington in 1860 March Q - there's no cross against them, so Lambeth in 1859 is a red herring as far as the actual marriage is concerned.

Similarly, John Brennan and Ellen Coghlan/Coughlan who you found in 1859 September quarter don't have a cross, as the March banns had expired by then.

Mythology
17-11-2006, 1:48 AM
Also, while it seems that there *are* some errors/omissions in the GRO index (e.g., the John Appleby and Susan Wigzell one, where you found him but not her, is there with a cross, and in the register too, on 3 April, so June quarter which you have for him is correct, and her slightly improbable looking surname is very clearly written in the register), this explains ones like the 1862 Herbert Thomas Handley marriage to somebody other than Catherine Rosewell - there's no cross against them, so the March 1859 one is a non-starter, they've had a tiff and he's later got hitched to somebody else.

Mythology
17-11-2006, 2:06 AM
As to the *reason* for no marriage, well, it's anyone's guess really, but "cold feet" seems the most likely.

If there was an objection due to, say, a previous marriage, I'd expect either to see a note to that effect, or for it to be crossed out.

Lack of consent doesn't look on, because he does note if somebody is a minor, and these two are just bachelor/spinster.

Marriage elsewhere also seems unlikely because at the end of the 6 March section he's written "all of this Parish" - for them to have married elsewhere by banns, one or other party would have to be (or, at least, claim to be, this isn't exactly rock solid!) living in that parish.

Mythology
17-11-2006, 2:36 AM
Wendus, if you want a copy of it just for the record, to show that they did at least think about getting married, you might be able to do better direct from the film at your FHC depending what their printer's like, but this cheap scan of mine will keep you going until then - the only other information not on this page is that note that I mentioned at the end of the 6 March section where he's written "all of this Parish".

(Thumbnail - click for full size)
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k167/ex-qualibet/th_lambeth59.png (http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k167/ex-qualibet/lambeth59.png)

Incidentally, there's no significance in the page being crossed through - they are all like that, he's presumably just crossed them off as "dealt with" at some stage.

Elly
17-11-2006, 9:11 AM
An excellent and *very* interesting piece of research. Thanks for sharing the results. It confirms that Banns books would repay more attention than they generally get, especially in cases of doubt.

It is outrageous that LDS have indexed these banns as marriages. I wonder how widespread this practice has been? Probably it is not the only batch to be so described. However, the data in some other I and J batches is genuine, for I have confirmed other marriages and baptisms in the relevant PRs, including St Mary Lambeth in fact.

For those marriages in the list that did take place, someone should submit the correct dates to LDS. Then the marriage entries would show as IGI search results alongside the banns. The appearance of two "marriage" entries for the same couple at the same church within three months would at least sound alarm bells among users. (No, I am not volunteering!)

Peter Goodey
18-11-2006, 11:06 AM
This relates to Kent not Surrey but the location doesn't really matter and this seems the logical place to put it.

I came across another IGI "I" batch. Batch I046896 contains a marriage of interest to me. It relates to William BLEEZE and Frances CHAPMAN allegedly married on 9 April 1826 at Wilmington in Kent.

Luckily the Wilmington parish registers are online making it easy to check.

As you will already have guessed there is no such marriage on 9 April. There is a marriage between this couple on 16 April.

Scurrying across to the banns register, we find as expected that banns were called on 26 March, 2 April and 9 April!

The adjacent marriage in the marriage register between Thomas SMITH and the slendidly named Fortune Honor ARMSTRONG took place on 2 April. The IGI shows it as 26 March.

Why on earth anyone would decide to extract marriages from the banns register is beyond me (the marriage register is perfectly legible).

Mythology
18-11-2006, 11:39 AM
I will try and be charitable.
Perhaps "I" stands for "Intent to marry".

(reverts to normal uncharitable mode)
But as they've used the date of the first reading for the Lambeth ones, but the third reading for the Wilmington ones perhaps "I" is for "Inconsistent".

Why on earth anyone would decide to extract marriages from the banns register is beyond me (the marriage register is perfectly legible).
Quite. The same applies to the Lambeth marriage register, nice and clear, no reason not to use it.

OK then - "I" for "Imbeciles". ;)

idredge
02-01-2008, 1:18 PM
I have two examples of the GRO mistakes, well more but these 2 for a start, my gg grandparents were married in their home village, I could not and have not found the reference in the indexing a case of snail mail going astray, so luck had it they did marry in their home village and I was able to get a copy. The other was my g grandfather again I found the marriage in the home village so knew my g grandmother full name and I was able to find it that way. Once Freebmd had typed up my grandfathers I was able to find it. It had been put under Timpkins instead of Simpkins.
The only trouble is if it was Banns they didn't necessary marry in that Church. But please don't slag off LDS there may be a lot wrong but nothing is perfect and no matter how much trouble it is to find a certificate it is a lead. Something they started first and for what ever reason they started I will be forever greatful. You just have to try and sort them out yourselves. Anything that does not have a full date could mean that they don't have a marriage/birth date but someone thought the year was right. My gg grandparents married in 1841 in Bath, LDS have entered it as 1844 in their home village but that was the fault of the person giving the information, LDS are starting to correct these things now. I might add I don't belong to the church but my gg grandfathers brother did and went to Utah in 1850 his granddaughter helped in the Library in Salt lake city up to 1930 when she died doing just this sort of thing, but before computers how they would have loved to be able to find the information we can get so quickly now.

So I am forever greatful to who ever helps us find our past.

Irene

BOBROB
28-03-2008, 9:11 PM
For ages I've been looking for a particular marriage, and at last found mention of it on the LDS website. The only source given for the information was a Batch number of I033463. Armed with the knowledge of the exact date of the marriage, I tried to find it in the England & Wales marriage index, but it doesn't appear to be there! Try as I might, I can't find it anywhere else, and so cannot get a reference number for the certificate.

I wonder if anyone out there can help?
The marriage was between Emma Wright and Robert Dadd, and took place in Lambeth, Surrey, on 6th March 1859.

I'd be really grateful for any help or advice.

Many thanks.

Wendy

Hi wendy if you put that number in the box at the bottom of the page on the IGS page and type Wright in the surname box it will show all persons named Wright if any that got married in that church there was an Emma Wright and Robert Dadd married on that day BUT BUT BUT DONT RELY ON THEM check on free bmd etc for both surnames having checked I can't find Emma Wright but I can find Emma Dadd Mar 1859 Blean 2a 713 I think but don't take my word for it. what I normally do is check both surnames only of vice visa good luck Bobrob

Pam101
22-05-2009, 12:24 AM
BOBROB, that is such useful information. Wish I'd known about it a couple of months ago! ;)