Howard and list, In addition to a list of early marriage licenses issued in New Jersey, there's an extended treatment of colonial marriage laws and practices in Marriages 1665-1800, by William Nelson 1900, which is Vol. XXII of the DCHSNJ series, available on-line:  http://archive.org/details/marriagerecords101nels It's interesting that you mention Gravesend, where the magistrates were ordered by the Director General in 1654 to cease the improper public posting of banns not "in accordance with correct practice of the ecclesiastical and civil order" (Nelson p.xxiii)  Apparently the English settlers at Gravesend weren't following the Dutch laws precisely enough.   Jim ________________________________ From: Howard Swain <hswain@ix.netcom.com> To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs.marriage) Hi all, As I recall, marriage was not a sacrament in the Calvinist churches -- Reformed (including Dutch Reformed), the New England Puritans, etc. It was, thus, a civil matter. However, ministers could marry people, as well as could justices of the peace or magistrates. After the English took control in 1664, the Duke of York's Laws were promulgated in 1665. Here is the section on Marriages: http://books.google.com/books?id=ggQKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA45&dq=%22Whereas+by+the+law+of+England+no+marriage%22&lr=&as_brr=0 Note at the top of page 46: "...it shall be Lawfull for any Minister or for any Justice of Peace to joyne the Parties in Marriage..." (This is, of course, after the banns have been read 3 times.) Other than the marriage intentions and marriages shown in the various church records, there were many other places that pre-nuptial agreements, marriage intentions, marriage licenses, and marriages were recorded. Many marriage licenses are shown in: _Names of persons for whom marriage licenses were issued by the secretary of the province of New York, previous to 1784_, Albany : Weed, Parsons and Co., 1860.  This was reprinted in 1968 with corrections and many additions. One of the additions is a list of marriages, etc. shown in O’Callaghan’s Calendar of Dutch Mss. and Calendar of English Mss.  Some of these are from the Register of the Provincial Secretary and are called marriage contract. (Seems like its a combinational of pre-nup and marriage intentions.) Others are from the various volumes of Council Minutes and record an actual marriage by “the court”. In The Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini, ed. by Berthold Fernow, Baltimore:  Genealogical Pub. Co., 1976 there are a few pages of banns entered before the Mayor of NY (vol. 6, pp. 262, 334, and 335). There are also marriages, marriage licences or both that were recorded in some of the will books and are in the Abstracts of Wills. I think there have been indications of marriages that were at least being planned in the Records of the Orphanmasters. Lastly, there is a list of Gravesend marriages from 1664 to 1702 in NYGBR vol 4, pp. 199-200. These were copied from the town books of Gravesend by Tunis Bergen. There may be more in other places; but this shows the variety of places were you can find (and should look for) marriage records. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com From: juliasgenes Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:04 AM To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs.marriage) It's just me interjecting my naive and unscholarly opinion here, but I suppose one inference of finding evidence of ancestors following the banns procedure would be that the parties were fairly religious in the RDC and were rules-followers, not ones to shake things up. If no banns are found where they would be expected to be in spite of diligent searching, some inferences could be made that the parties had left the RDC and aligned themselves with a faith that does not have a process of speaking/ publishing banns; or maybe that they have removed to someplace else, at least for the period when the banns would be made; or that they were iconoclasts and had dropped out of religion altogether. Which brings to mind this question: was there a civil alternative in colonial New Netherlands for marriage? Or for the non-religious Dutch, was marriage one of those few times they absolutely had to step into a church? Positive information is always great to have, but many people fail to realize that there just might be value in negative information. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Jim, This situation in Gravesend seems to have been about just one couple -- Johannes van Beeck and Maria Verleth. They were apparently living in New Amsterdam, yet posted banns in Gravesend as opposed to posting in the town where they lived. (see Nelson pp. xxii to xxv.) As you can see from the Duke’s Laws I provided a link to, this was also in violation of English law and practice. I have seen some cases where the bride and groom were living in different cities and marriage intentions and banns in both cities have survived. I don’t know why Stuyvesant was so upset by this one case. There is more in an article on the Verleth family in NYGBR -- see vol 9, no. 3, pp 113 – 115. The couple seems to have eventually gone to Connecticut to get married. I think we’ve discussed this particular case before here, but I’ve forgotten the details and the motivations of the people involved. Did someone oppose the marriage? Maybe Liz will remember. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com From: James Harder Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:30 AM To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns"(vs.marriage) Howard and list, In addition to a list of early marriage licenses issued in New Jersey, there's an extended treatment of colonial marriage laws and practices in Marriages 1665-1800, by William Nelson 1900, which is Vol. XXII of the DCHSNJ series, available on-line: http://archive.org/details/marriagerecords101nels It's interesting that you mention Gravesend, where the magistrates were ordered by the Director General in 1654 to cease the improper public posting of banns not "in accordance with correct practice of the ecclesiastical and civil order" (Nelson p.xxiii) Apparently the English settlers at Gravesend weren't following the Dutch laws precisely enough. Jim ________________________________ From: Howard Swain <hswain@ix.netcom.com> To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs.marriage) Hi all, As I recall, marriage was not a sacrament in the Calvinist churches -- Reformed (including Dutch Reformed), the New England Puritans, etc. It was, thus, a civil matter. However, ministers could marry people, as well as could justices of the peace or magistrates. After the English took control in 1664, the Duke of York's Laws were promulgated in 1665. Here is the section on Marriages: http://books.google.com/books?id=ggQKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA45&dq=%22Whereas+by+the+law+of+England+no+marriage%22&lr=&as_brr=0 Note at the top of page 46: "...it shall be Lawfull for any Minister or for any Justice of Peace to joyne the Parties in Marriage..." (This is, of course, after the banns have been read 3 times.) Other than the marriage intentions and marriages shown in the various church records, there were many other places that pre-nuptial agreements, marriage intentions, marriage licenses, and marriages were recorded. Many marriage licenses are shown in: _Names of persons for whom marriage licenses were issued by the secretary of the province of New York, previous to 1784_, Albany : Weed, Parsons and Co., 1860. This was reprinted in 1968 with corrections and many additions. One of the additions is a list of marriages, etc. shown in O’Callaghan’s Calendar of Dutch Mss. and Calendar of English Mss. Some of these are from the Register of the Provincial Secretary and are called marriage contract. (Seems like its a combinational of pre-nup and marriage intentions.) Others are from the various volumes of Council Minutes and record an actual marriage by “the court”. In The Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini, ed. by Berthold Fernow, Baltimore: Genealogical Pub. Co., 1976 there are a few pages of banns entered before the Mayor of NY (vol. 6, pp. 262, 334, and 335). There are also marriages, marriage licences or both that were recorded in some of the will books and are in the Abstracts of Wills. I think there have been indications of marriages that were at least being planned in the Records of the Orphanmasters. Lastly, there is a list of Gravesend marriages from 1664 to 1702 in NYGBR vol 4, pp. 199-200. These were copied from the town books of Gravesend by Tunis Bergen. There may be more in other places; but this shows the variety of places were you can find (and should look for) marriage records. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com