I don't know about clarifying this definitively, but there might be further considerations. Couples were eligible to marry after reading of the 3rd and last banns, on the third consecitive Sunday. But that doesn't mean they married later that day. The couple could marry any time after the last banns, and most probably did marry shortly thereafter. But without some kind of actual record, such as a family bible or register, the exact marriage date may remain impossible to pin down. Use a perpetual calendar to find the correct nearest Sunday. At some point in the New Amsterdam church records, they ceased recording the announcement date, and started using the actual marriage date in the records instead. I don't remember what year that was, but there was a discussion about this several years ago on the list here. Use the Advanced search here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search?aop=1 I don't find much of a problem with a date of intention versus an actual marriage date. If this is a concern, then it might be easily resolved by stating in your Sources box that the date you have was the date of the marriage intention. For the Amsterdam marriages (and those in Leiden and so forth) often I just use a parenthetical comment, 'Ondertrouw', after the citation (such as SAA DTB 433:34). Or I know this anyway, because I transcribed the record of marriage intention, and in this case, the transcription of the ondertrouw is placed in the Notes section for one or both parties of the marrying couple. Liz J On 9 January 2013 21:09, <nancyterhune@optonline.net> wrote: Cor, > Thank you! I appreciate your reply and am very grateful for your > information. We should all register it and apply it to our documentation. > > Speaking for myself, and in the progression of my research, I considered > it of the most importance to have distinguished marriage dates from first > dates of banns and to specify them in my research as different. I see, > however, that I'd misled myself: at least in the Reformed Church there are > three essential marriage-related dates: registration of intent, then first > announcement of banns (actually not specified), then marriage. Succession > of first to second to third Sunday banns pronouncements can be reasonably > assumed, historically. > > According to what you've provided - of which I have no doubt - we should > look at the registration dates on a historic calendar (by day of the week), > identify the closest following Sunday and extend the banns process from > there. Yes? > > This is of greatest importance: Who can clarify this for all, > definitively? We're lucky if we can make a dent in the marriage vs. banns > debate - step in to claim the reality field. How do we change the idea of > the entire context? The digital age of genealogy is a fill-in-the-blanks > affair, and its degree of detail is beyond what we're talking about here. > Really: what to do? > > N >

This brings to mind two things [1] time [2] desire. [1] Whilst wholly supporting the need for both completeness and correctness I would doubt that this would be high on the list of the agenda of most people primarily on the grounds of time or time management. You either have a marriage date or you do not. If you do not it may well be of long standing so that the expectation will be for anything to be gratefully received rather than contemplation of now looking for 5 or 6 dates instead of one. It will also be somewhat academic of course. If you do have a ‘ date ‘ I agree that it would be nice to be confident that it was right and to know what it represented but in the overall scheme how would it help the residual thought process / appreciation of one’s ‘ family history ‘. The ‘ general sense of wellbeing, contentment ‘ at being able to dwell in idle or waking or sleepy moments on the story of one’s ancestors? If you have a documented couple and their 10 children and confidence of the line before, after and in general through various sources then you ‘ know ‘ the wealth of their story. I do not mean this in a rude sense but there is correct / complete and there is persnickety? The bottom line is of course ‘each to their own ‘ .I was, though, of course very happy to find the marriage record of an ancestor in 1652 Holland firstly mistakenly thought to be marriage, but then quickly realised to in fact be banns and upon full reading to find a margin note to the effect ‘ these persons were married in …by… ‘.They had printed forms. Can anyone quote case studies to demonstrate [1] how something like this was all achieved and / or [2] how you felt it benefited you and / or your research? In the case of 17th century NN and post 1664 records I would be very sceptical of much more coming to light as so much has previously been done over many, many years that the advent of online will not help, rather a find in an attic or basement [ which will then end up online ! ] . [2] The wider aspect prompted is in fact rather interesting and perhaps something not previously raised on this list or maybe most others of the ‘ ultimate aim ‘ . It seems to me that most writings here are designed to help gap fill which is both laudable and worthwhile. I did write some years back about the wish of folks to get back beyond NN to discover their European ancestry which resulted in one reply and led me to believe that virtually no one on the list was interested, at least not enough to write on the matter. Perhaps if that is their goal they would be on another list!? Is there anyone out there hoping to research further beyond the shores of North America other than via DNA? Is that not the greater desire of the vast majority – to discover one’s line back to Methuselah? or at least the place / places of origin of one’s ancestors? Perhaps not. Regardless of that, is anyone inclined to write on what they hope to achieve, what do they dream about in terms of their own personal genealogical ‘ nirvana ‘? Laurence van Kleek This brings to mind two things [1] time [2] desire. [1] Whilst wholly supporting the need for both completeness and correctness I would doubt that this would be high on the list of the agenda of most people primarily on the grounds of time or time management. You either have a marriage date or you do not. If you do not it may well be of long standing so that the expectation will be for anything to be gratefully received rather than contemplation of now looking for 5 or 6 dates instead of one. It will also be somewhat academic of course. If you do have a ‘ date ‘ I agree that it would be nice to be confident that it was right and to know what it represented but in the overall scheme how would it help the residual thought process / appreciation of one’s ‘ family history ‘. The ‘ general sense of wellbeing, contentment ‘ at being able to dwell in idle or waking or sleepy moments on the story of one’s ancestors? If you have a documented couple and their 10 children and confidence of the line before, after and in general through various sources then you ‘ know ‘ the wealth of their story. I do not mean this in a rude sense but there is correct / complete and there is persnickety? The bottom line is of course ‘each to their own ‘ .I was, though, of course very happy to find the marriage record of an ancestor in 1652 Holland firstly mistakenly thought to be marriage, but then quickly realised to in fact be banns and upon full reading to find a margin note to the effect ‘ these persons were married in …by… ‘.They had printed forms. Can anyone quote case studies to demonstrate [1] how something like this was all achieved and / or [2] how you felt it benefited you and / or your research? In the case of 17th century NN and post 1664 records I would be very sceptical of much more coming to light as so much has previously been done over many, many years that the advent of online will not help, rather a find in an attic or basement [ which will then end up online ! ] . [2] The wider aspect prompted is in fact rather interesting and perhaps something not previously raised on this list or maybe most others of the ‘ ultimate aim ‘ . It seems to me that most writings here are designed to help gap fill which is both laudable and worthwhile. I did write some years back about the wish of folks to get back beyond NN to discover their European ancestry which resulted in one reply and led me to believe that virtually no one on the list was interested, at least not enough to write on the matter. Perhaps if that is their goal they would be on another list!? Is there anyone out there hoping to research further beyond the shores of North America other than via DNA? Is that not the greater desire of the vast majority – to discover one’s line back to Methuselah? or at least the place / places of origin of one’s ancestors? Perhaps not. Regardless of that, is anyone inclined to write on what they hope to achieve, what do they dream about in terms of their own personal genealogical ‘ nirvana ‘? Laurence van Kleek -----Original Message----- From: E Johnson <iris.gates@gmail.com> To: dutch-colonies <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 3:03 Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Marriage "registration" vs. "banns" (vs. marriage) I don't know about clarifying this definitively, but there might be further onsiderations. Couples were eligible to marry after reading of the 3rd and ast banns, on the third consecitive Sunday. But that doesn't mean they arried later that day. The couple could marry any time after the last anns, and most probably did marry shortly thereafter. But without some ind of actual record, such as a family bible or register, the exact arriage date may remain impossible to pin down. Use a perpetual calendar to find the correct nearest Sunday. At some point in the New Amsterdam church records, they ceased recording he announcement date, and started using the actual marriage date in the ecords instead. I don't remember what year that was, but there was a iscussion about this several years ago on the list here. Use the Advanced earch here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search?aop=1 I don't find much of a problem with a date of intention versus an actual arriage date. If this is a concern, then it might be easily resolved by tating in your Sources box that the date you have was the date of the arriage intention. For the Amsterdam marriages (and those in Leiden and so orth) often I just use a parenthetical comment, 'Ondertrouw', after the itation (such as SAA DTB 433:34). Or I know this anyway, because I ranscribed the record of marriage intention, and in this case, the ranscription of the ondertrouw is placed in the Notes section for one or oth parties of the marrying couple. Liz J On 9 January 2013 21:09, <nancyterhune@optonline.net> wrote: Cor, Thank you! I appreciate your reply and am very grateful for your information. We should all register it and apply it to our documentation. Speaking for myself, and in the progression of my research, I considered it of the most importance to have distinguished marriage dates from first dates of banns and to specify them in my research as different. I see, however, that I'd misled myself: at least in the Reformed Church there are three essential marriage-related dates: registration of intent, then first announcement of banns (actually not specified), then marriage. Succession of first to second to third Sunday banns pronouncements can be reasonably assumed, historically. According to what you've provided - of which I have no doubt - we should look at the registration dates on a historic calendar (by day of the week), identify the closest following Sunday and extend the banns process from there. Yes? This is of greatest importance: Who can clarify this for all, definitively? We're lucky if we can make a dent in the marriage vs. banns debate - step in to claim the reality field. How do we change the idea of the entire context? The digital age of genealogy is a fill-in-the-blanks affair, and its degree of detail is beyond what we're talking about here. Really: what to do? N ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message