Unusual family, marriage & banns entry

[Wilkes_ml]

I wasn't really sure where to post this as it covers a wide range of subjects, but my main query is around the banns and marriage of a John RIST (RISTBRIDGE) to a Mary PRIMMER at Owslebury.

It took me ages to find the marriage as the child I am decended from was baptised Betty RUSBRIDGE (married as Betty RUSTBRIDGE). Her siblings were baptised with the surname RIST

The parents' banns of marriage were published 15th, 22nd & 29th January 1775 between John RIST & Mary PRIMMER both of the parish of Owslebury. The marriage took place on the 9th January 1776 between John RIST of Owslebury & Mary PRIMMER late of the parish of Owslebury. But the signatures are of John RISTBRIDGE and the mark of Mary PRIMMER.

Even though 3 of their children were baptised with the surname RIST, two daughters Mary & Ann both married using the surname RISTBRIDGE in 1811 and 1813.

And just to complicate things further John & Mary are both buried at Owslebury under the surname WRESTBRIDGE!

So, firstly RIST doesn't sound anything like RISTBRIDGE, so why would the banns & marriage be written by the Vicar as RIST, when someone should have noticed he signed as RISTBRIDGE and made a correction.

And are banns valid for a year?

In addition to the children born after the marriage, there was also an illigitimate child baptised John Rist PRIMMER March 1775 (no parent's names recorded but pretty obvious!) so maybe the banns were published in anticipation of the birth of the child, and for some reason the marriage was postponed for some unknown reason.

Any comments or thoughts appreciated!

[smj7290]

Seems you've entangled a few dilemmas.

Banns have only been valid for three months after issue, and after that the publication of banns are void and no clergyman, vicar, priest etc can solemnize the marriage on the authority thereof.

Notice all the numerous surnames are variants of "Ristbridge" - education was so rare so many people didn't even know how to spell their own surname or what it even was!! It seems the bride was illiterate as you mention.

If there was an illegitimate child with the middle name 'Rist' from the natural father it's more than likely the father will marry the mother under that surname if they marry at all.

[Wilkes_ml]

This has to be one of the most complex families I've researched, as not only was Betty RUSBRIDGE married as Betty RUSTBRIDGE to Stephen GILES, and their first daughter was baptised, Mary GILES, the couple then reverted back to Stephen's original surname of CHILD(S) for the remaining 3 children's baptisms. Stephen was actually baptised as CHILDS (his father was also Stephen CHILDS)!

But it just goes to show how we need to think laterally when it comes to researching!

[smj7290]

Woah - I empathize with you!

My ancestors have been a pain - my Irish bunch used Cook and/or Cooke and have become a flippin' nuisance to trace!

[christanel]

My great grandfather went the opposite way and chopped off the second half of the family surname in the late 1870's after he remarried then regretted it. So he moved 12 miles, took his eldest son's first name and shortened their surname. I found them because of the children's names and birth dates.
Most of the children reverted to the usual surname but there is still a branch of the family today who use the shortened version of the name and when I contacted them to explain my theory as to why they couldn't move further back with their research didn't seem all that interested in exploring it further.

Did the illegitimate child survive? If the marriage was arranged because of the bride's to be pregnancy but said child was sickly and not expected to live maybe the wedding was delayed to see whether it was necessary for the parties to marry at all! (if you see what I mean.

Christina

[smj7290]

Fast thinking, Christina!!

It's quite possible they had banns issued as a pre-caution whether the illegitimate child would survive, but after expiry date the banns are no longer valid. They may have married under licence.

[Wilkes_ml]

That was mu thought, but strangely the marriage entry is entered in the same entry as their banns entry, and no mention of a licence being issued.

[smj7290]

I'm beginning to think they claimed, upon questioning about banns or licence, that they said they had banns read in a different church.

It might be that the vicar thought that they could the banns were still legal so solemnized their marriage under void banns. Ridiculous but possible.

[helachau]

"And are banns valid for a year?".

Hardwicke's 1754 Act read "... all Banns of Matrimony shall be published, in an audible manner... upon three Sundays preceding the Solemnization of Marriage, during the Time of morning Service, or of Evening Service, if there be no Morning Service in such Church or Chapel upon any of those Sundays, immediately after the Second Lesson".

No mention of consecutive or validity period. I understand these may be "recent" introductions/amendments

The Act began "An Act for the better preventing of clandestine Marriages...."

[smj7290]

No, I'm positive they have always been valid for three months only. I have just started work, so I'll get that checked with some experts