Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    A fountain of knowledge DBCoup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Posts
    382

    Default Hardy-Rayner Marriages

    Not sure if this is the right forum for this ...
    I am puzzled by the following ...
    In the parish records of St Michael the Archangel, Braintree, Essex [spelling in document retained]
    Record No 33
    John Hardy of this parish Batchelor and Fortune Rayner of this parish Spinster were married in this church by banns this eighteenth day of April in the year one thousand seven and ninety two by me Chrisn Lawson Curate. This marriage was solemnized between us John Hardy, Fortune Rayner's mark in the presence of Peter Brown, Robt Collis
    So far so good but ...
    Record No. 188 John Hardey widower of the parish of St Andrews the Great Cambridge and Furtun Rayner of this parish were married in this church by Licence this sixth day of February in the year one thousand eight hundred and one by me Bernard Scale vicar. This marriage was solemnized between us John Hardy, Fortun Rayner her mark in the presence of us James Jocelyn Overseer, Edmd Peers, John Collis

    To me it LOOKS like this might mean that John Hardy was not a bachelor as claimed in the 1792 marriage, and that his wife died between 1792 and 1801, and he re-married Fortune in 1801 .....
    I would appreciate the opinion on this of any one who cares to reply.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    cambridge
    Posts
    1,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DBCoup View Post
    Not sure if this is the right forum for this ...
    I am puzzled by the following ...
    In the parish records of St Michael the Archangel, Braintree, Essex [spelling in document retained]
    Record No 33
    John Hardy of this parish Batchelor and Fortune Rayner of this parish Spinster were married in this church by banns this eighteenth day of April in the year one thousand seven and ninety two by me Chrisn Lawson Curate. This marriage was solemnized between us John Hardy, Fortune Rayner's mark in the presence of Peter Brown, Robt Collis
    So far so good but ...
    Record No. 188 John Hardey widower of the parish of St Andrews the Great Cambridge and Furtun Rayner of this parish were married in this church by Licence this sixth day of February in the year one thousand eight hundred and one by me Bernard Scale vicar. This marriage was solemnized between us John Hardy, Fortun Rayner her mark in the presence of us James Jocelyn Overseer, Edmd Peers, John Collis

    To me it LOOKS like this might mean that John Hardy was not a bachelor as claimed in the 1792 marriage, and that his wife died between 1792 and 1801, and he re-married Fortune in 1801 .....
    I would appreciate the opinion on this of any one who cares to reply.
    According to Ancestry John Hardey married Fortun Rayner on 6 Feb 1801 in St, Michael the Archangel (Parish Records) in Braintree, Essex. I cannot find any records of them marrying in Cambridgeshire.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    9,636

    Default

    DB - Following on from Sue's reply, my question is - are you looking at original documents, or transcripts?

    Secondly, as strange, weird, and unlikely as it may seem, it is possible that you can have two couples with the same names marrying. Especially back in the 1700s and 1800s when naming patterns were in full swing so each generation would have four or five Thomases named after father/grandfather with a similar numbers of Marys named after mum or granny.
    If you haven't already done so, you need to start looking for births of Fortun(e) Rayners. Not just assume that there was only one.
    Vulcan XH558 - “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”

  4. #4
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    cambridge
    Posts
    1,084

    Default

    There is a baptism between 1670-1796 for a Fortune Rayner - St. Mary the Virgin, Bocking. Parents John and Mary.

    There is also a burial on 14 January 1728 for a Fortune Rayner, wife of John in the same Church.

  5. #5
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    I'd say your theory is certainly a possibility, and if nothing else should prompt you to carry out further searches for a possible earlier marriage of John Hardy, and for anything else you can gather about him.

    Marrying a second time by licence rather than banns certainly suggests they didn't wanted to advertise it.

    I have a couple who married twice because their first marriage was invalid (he'd married his deceased wife's sister, which only became lawful after 1907), so re-marrying to legitimise it is certainly a possibility.

  6. #6

    Default

    FMP - transcripts only

    Boyd's Marriage Index
    Fortune Rainer, year - 1792, spouse - John Hardy, place - Braintree
    Fortune Rainer, year - 1801, spouse - John Hardy, place - Braintree

    Essex Marriages & Banns 1557-1935
    Fortune Rayner, marital status - S, residence - Danbury, date - 18 Apr 1792, place - Braintree and John Hardy, marital status - B, residence - Danbury

    England Marriages 1538 - 1973
    Fortune Rayner, date - 6 Feb 1801, place - Braintree and John Hardy, residence - Braintree

    Burials
    Fortune Hardy, age - 67, burial date - 25 Mar 1833, place - Braintree, Church of St Michael the Archangel
    "dyfal donc a dyr y garreg"

  7. #7
    A fountain of knowledge DBCoup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Thank you one and all for your thoughts. Certainly plenty to work on with all your much appreciated suggestions. There must be something in the water in Essex as NONE of my Essex ancestral lines are proving to be straight-forward.

  8. #8
    A fountain of knowledge DBCoup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Posts
    382

    Default

    I am looking at D/P 264/1/9 on the Essex Archives Online site. Judging from the observation that the signatures are in a different hand to the names in the body of the form leads me to conclude that these are original records. I thought I had replied to this post, but I cannot find it.....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: