Amy Scullum

[almach]

Perhaps it just a record of the banns and no marriage took place.

There are large age gaps between the children recorded in 1861 so it could be a blended family. Henry may just be George's son?

It is a banns record
"London, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1931 for Charles Hawkins"
St Mary, Lambeth, 30th Aug 1846, Charles Hawkins/Amy Boyer Skellom.

I cannot find a marriage and have checked through the St Mary Lambeth register through Sept and part of Oct 1846. I conclude the marriage didn't take place.

[Pam Downes]

The Amy Boyer Skellom, 30 Aug 1846, marriage is a puzzle. It's listed on FMP and Familysearch, with Familysearch recording the church as St. Mary, Lambeth (Catholic?). Yet unable to find a marriage registration for the Sep/Dec Qtrs 1846.

I've found a similar conundrum but in reverse. Marriage registration is in the GRO Index, but when you look at the parish register although the names of the bride and groom have been filled in (possibly some other details as well - need to check my files which are upstairs) it also says words equivalent to 'marriage stopped because of sanguinuity', so because the marriage never took place it shouldn't be in the GRO Index. Just realised (truthfully, about ten years after finding the entry ) that I bet the reason is because the 'marriage stopped' bit never got written in the copy register sent to the local Superindent Registrar. Will have to email them and ask.

I think that a lot of FMP's stuff is based on transcriptions on FamilySearch, so if the latter is wrong, then FMP will be also. Is there a possibility that FamilySearch have labelled entries from the Banns register in error as entries from the parish marriage register?

Pam

[Pam Downes]

I think that a lot of FMP's stuff is based on transcriptions on FamilySearch, so if the latter is wrong, then FMP will be also. Is there a possibility that FamilySearch have labelled entries from the Banns register in error as entries from the parish marriage register?

Pam

Got it in one! Well, sort of, because it comes under the general umbrella of 'England Marriages 1538-1973' so you automatically assume that it refers to a marriage.

The trick is to look at the film number mentioned in the record.
Go to the FS Catalog (sic),
https://www.familysearch.org/catalog/search
enter the film number, and then keep clicking on the links till you get the actual listing.

In this case film number 1041667 begins by telling you that it refers to the parish registers if St Mary's Lambeth 1754-1928.
However, when you click further you get quite a long list of numbers with the precise registers they refer to (baptisms, burials, etc). The numbers are in order; scroll down almost to the bottom of the list, and against 1041667 you find
'Banns, 1828-1848 (no entries, 1831-1835)'.

ADDED: And of course, the record just gets transferred across to FMP under 'England Marriages 1538-1973' with no distinction between banns and marriage records.

Pam

[almach]

I think I'm getting a little confused now. We're saying that Amy Skellom married a Mr Hawkins in 1846, but, as Amy Chandler, in about 1847 she became the mother of Henry Chandler (14-years-old on the 1861 census) ?

We now know the 'marriage' record was in fact a banns record and no marriage has been found.

I haven't found a birth registration for a Henry Chandler circa 1847, but did find one for a Henry Skellom, however I haven't found it on the GRO site to establish MMN (perhaps mistranscribed and someone else may have more luck)

FreeBMD
Births Dec 1845
Skellom Henry Lambeth 4 284

[Pam Downes]

We now know the 'marriage' record was in fact a banns record and no marriage has been found.

I haven't found a birth registration for a Henry Chandler circa 1847, but did find one for a Henry Skellom, however I haven't found it on the GRO site to establish MMN (perhaps mistranscribed and someone else may have more luck)

FreeBMD
Births Dec 1845
Skellom Henry Lambeth 4 284

I didn't have any luck on the GRO Historical births either, Alma.
But the entries either side of Henry's on the GRO Index (alphabetical) page have both been indexed, as have Lydia Groom, James Lamey, and Henry Stone who are all on the same volume and page as Henry Skellom. Therefore logic dictates that either the entry has been mistranscribed or missed off.
So if wimsey wants to follow this lead he needs to write to the GRO saying that the entry appears to be missing, can they help.

Pam

[almach]

I didn't have any luck on the GRO Historical births either, Alma.
But the entries either side of Henry's on the GRO Index (alphabetical) page have both been indexed, as have Lydia Groom, James Lamey, and Henry Stone who are all on the same volume and page as Henry Skellom. Therefore logic dictates that either the entry has been mistranscribed or missed off.
So if wimsey wants to follow this lead he needs to write to the GRO saying that the entry appears to be missing, can they help.

Pam

I've not had any luck finding George, Amy or Henry in 1851, either together or separately

[wimsey]

thanks everybody for your efforts. As I said at the outset I posted this thread because of an enquiry through Ancestry messaging. I have suggested to 'David', whose query it is, that he joins Brit-Gen himself rather than me passing messages backwards and forwards. I've given him a link to this forum so I am sure he is reading your advice regarding further research.

[helachau]

Thanks for confirming "banns" rather than "marriage". The 1846 Hawkin's "marriage" and the 1847 Chandler birth just didn't fit.

[AntonyMMM]

I've found a similar conundrum but in reverse. Marriage registration is in the GRO Index, but when you look at the parish register although the names of the bride and groom have been filled in (possibly some other details as well - need to check my files which are upstairs) it also says words equivalent to 'marriage stopped because of sanguinuity', so because the marriage never took place it shouldn't be in the GRO Index. Just realised (truthfully, about ten years after finding the entry ) that I bet the reason is because the 'marriage stopped' bit never got written in the copy register sent to the local Superindent Registrar. Will have to email them and ask.

Or maybe the marriage went ahead at the register office or different church ?
To be submitted to GRO the register entry should have been complete (including signatures & witnesses) you would hope the Supt registrar would have noticed if it wasn't !
A good example of how an index can only tell you so much .....be interesting to see the certificate from GRO.

[Pam Downes]

Or maybe the marriage went ahead at the register office or different church ?
To be submitted to GRO the register entry should have been complete (including signatures & witnesses) you would hope the Supt registrar would have noticed if it wasn't !
A good example of how an index can only tell you so much .....be interesting to see the certificate from GRO.

Nope. There are no further entries for Joseph and Ann marrying in England or Wales in the next fifty years.

The non-marriage is listed on the same GRO Index volume/page as the remaining three marriages shown on the two pages of the opened parish register.
I've just checked, and the actual wording was ''This marriage was stopped immediately before celebration by a bystander the parties wishing to be married being within the prohibited degrees'.
If I worked it out correctly Ann was the widow of Joseph's brother. This was in 1851.

Sorry, wimsey, getting a bit off-topic here.

Pam