PDA

View Full Version : Non-Conformist Marriages



sueannbowen
24-05-2010, 9:42 AM
I have scanned here to see if I can find the answer to my question - no luck but that might be poor scanning skills!

I have a whole bunch of people who were non-conformists and whose births and deaths show up in the non-parochial BMDs. One at least was a Quaker but I think later on some became baptists (not sure if that sounds right though). The issue is, from about 50+ hits on a particular name on a particular subscription site, only one of them relates to a marriage the rest were baptisms/deaths. The time period was between 1700 and 1800. Did they marry in Anglican churches or am I missing something?

TVM for any pearls of wisdom.

Kerrywood
24-05-2010, 9:51 AM
Between 1754 and 1837 all marriages had to be in the Established (Anglican) Church in order to be recognised by canon law. The only exceptions were Quakers and Jews, whose record-keeping was thought to be superior to other nonconformist groups.

On the nonconformist registers site, records prefixed RG6 are in Quaker sources. Don't forget you can access all these nonconformist records free at Kew, or with a subscription to The Genealogist.

Waitabit
24-05-2010, 9:52 AM
Have you tried
http://
www.
bmdregisters.co.uk/

sueannbowen
24-05-2010, 9:56 AM
Between 1754 and 1837 all marriages had to be in the Established (Anglican) Church in order to be recognised by canon law. The only exceptions were Quakers and Jews, whose record-keeping was thought to be superior to other nonconformist groups.

On the nonconformist registers site, records prefixed RG6 are in Quaker sources. Don't forget you can access all these nonconformist records free at Kew, or with a subscription to The Genealogist.

Thanks for being so quick off the mark Kerrywood. The records I have trawled are from the Genealogist so will go back and check whether the source was RG6 or not. With regard to your fist point I had a vague thought (one of many sadly) that people had to be married in the Established Church so that might be where my lot were married if they were Baptists.

Thanks again - and have still not plucked up the courage to visit Kew (heaven knows why).

Kerrywood
24-05-2010, 10:00 AM
Thanks again - and have still not plucked up the courage to visit Kew (heaven knows why).

This sort of thing is dead easy at Kew. You just sit at a computer terminal and download the images -- exactly as you would at home, except it's free. :biggrin:

sueannbowen
24-05-2010, 10:02 AM
Have you tried bmdregisters.co.uk/

Thanks Wendy - yes and now Kerrywood has pointed out the bit about RG6 I now know how to find out what they were (Quakers etc). feel embarassed I have never looked at that before.

Peter Goodey
24-05-2010, 10:41 AM
Between 1754 and 1837 all marriages had to be in the Established (Anglican) Church in order to be recognised by canon law.

Civil law, surely?


The only exceptions were Quakers and Jews, whose record-keeping was thought to be superior to other nonconformist groups.

This is a question, not an argument. Do you or does anyone have a reference to support this? The Act actually laid down new formalities for Quaker marriages. I thought vaguely (and I may well be wrong here) that the Act was among other things, correcting the situation whereby previously Quaker and Jewish marriages simply weren't recognised in law.

Kerrywood
24-05-2010, 11:00 AM
Civil law, surely?
Thank you, Peter.


This is a question, not an argument. Do you or does anyone have a reference to support this?
I said thought to be, and I chose my words rather carefully.


The Act actually laid down new formalities for Quaker marriages. I thought vaguely (and I may well be wrong here) that the Act was among other things, correcting the situation whereby previously Quaker and Jewish marriages simply weren't recognised in law.
As you will know, the text of Act is here (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1753.htm) (in case anyone else wants to read it). For further on its background, perhaps Guy will be able to assist.

Kerrywood
24-05-2010, 2:12 PM
The records I have trawled are from the Genealogist so will go back and check whether the source was RG6 or not.
Sue, in case it helps you or anyone else using the free index on the non-parochial registers site (bmdregisters.co.uk) . . .

The original registers are held at TNA, and the source references that come up in the search results (RG4 ..., RG6 ..., BT158 ... etc.) are TNA piece numbers.

To find out how relevant these results are to your research, you can convert the references using the TNA catalogue. You can normally identify the religious denomination for each register (if any), and find out which part of the country it comes from.

Go to the TNA catalogue home page (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/default.asp?j=1).

Ignore the main Search.

In the Go to reference box (top left, above Welcome) enter the piece number from your search results on BMDregisters, ignoring any leading 0s, and replacing the underscore _ with a forward slash /

So RG6_0422 should be entered as RG6/422

Click Go to reference.

This brings up the TNA catalogue entry for that particular register. It will give you a clue as to which of the search results at BMDregisters is worth pursuing.

sueannbowen
24-05-2010, 5:03 PM
Thanks Kerrywood - I generally avoid the TNA like the plague but will give it a go. All these dissenters in the ranks need to be dug out! I appreciate the effort on such a hot afternoon!

v.wells
08-09-2011, 9:15 PM
I had a look at BMD registers with the hope of finding a marriage but to no avail. I guess there never was a marriage. I do appreciate finding this thread and the links provided. Hopefully it will help someone else looking for non-conformist records.