Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Wilkes_ml
    Guest

    Default Non-conformist Fleet clandestine marriage

    Does anyone have any thoughts on why a widow from Stebbing, Essex marry a man also from Stebbing at Fleet in 1743?

    I always thought that clandestine marriages were usually for couples who were young and wanted a quick marriage without their parents knowledge. As far as I can tell, the widow would have been in her 40s and can not see any reason why she wouldn't marry in the parish church at Stebbing, where her first marriage took place in 1725.

  2. #2
    pippycat
    Guest

    Default

    Quick, cheap, needed no banns or license and a lot nearer than Gretna Green
    ..... maybe one or both families just disapproved of the union.

    Rebecca

  3. #3
    Wilkes_ml
    Guest

    Default

    Thanks, I did wonder if that was the case, but if both families were of Stebbing, then the parish church would have been even closer, and banns only takes 3 weeks, so I was just a bit puzzled. I'm looking into her second husbands situation (from the limited sources available).

    It's difficult to know how the family felt, but she was about 43 with her youngest 2 children aged 4 and 8 so maybe he was much younger than her.... maybe if I can find a baptism for him or a burial with an age, it may shed a bit more light on it.

  4. #4
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    626

    Default

    You mention the marriage was at Fleet, was that Fleet, Hampshire or Fleet Prison, London?
    If the latter, you have your reason.
    Cheers
    Guy

    PS It is also possible they simply took advantage of a clergyman who was imprisoned in the Fleet prison but who worked the area around the prison to gain income.
    As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

  5. #5
    Reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    16,792

    Default

    A high proportion of London marriages at that sort of time were Fleet marriages. They were not non-conformist, by the way.

  6. #6
    Wilkes_ml
    Guest

    Default

    I was going by the front of the film which said "Non-conformist registers Fleet London 1738 to 1744 RG 7 (filmed for the Genealogical Society ..........).

    I thought that anyone could get married in the grounds, or area around the fleet prison, not nessicarily prisoners in the Fleet prison. From watching Little Dorrit, I had the impression that the Fleet prison was an "open" prison for debtors, but haven't looked into it yet to see what the reality was.

    The RG7 176 film that is on ancestry appears to be more of an alphabetical list rather than an actual register (maybe it was easier to do it that way due to the shear numbers going through the prison to be married.) but on image 3 on the inside cover of the book, it says that it is the register of marraiges performed by Mr. WYATT, MR. ASHWELL & MR. SUNDRY?

    having looked at the entry again, the groom is a widower, so that means it is unlikely that an unaproving family is the reason for the clandestine marriage.

    I'll have a look through newspapers/sessions etc to see if I can find any reason for either the bride or groom to be in the actual prison itself.

  7. #7
    Wilkes_ml
    Guest

    Default

    From what I have managed to find ( surprisingly quickly) is that a Frances OWERS (same name as the bride who married at Fleet) wife of John OWERS, butcher had been in trouble with the law, as in 1739 a Frances OWERS, along with 4 other people all from Stebbing, were arrested "for a riott, and assaulting James HOLGATE const. and rescuing Elizabeth FRENCH & Rose TAYLOR.

    I was getting all excited thinking this was the same Frances OWERS, who was widowed in 1741, however in the sessions she had the comment "dead", 3 other rioters had comments "dismissed by act of Grace", whilst one other "confessed and fined 1d"

    so now I am more confused!

  8. #8
    Reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    16,792

    Default

    filmed for the Genealogical Society ......
    Yeah well that's the Mormons for you!

    These marriages are non-parochial rather than non-conformist. On the whole ceremonies were performed by disgraced clergymen and some imposters. They didn't have a theological argument with the Church of England.

    I wouldn't worry too much about the reasons - loads of people married that way because it was quick and cheap. And perfectly legal until the 1753 Act put a stop to 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: