Hello List, I inadvertently sent this email directly to Chris Reaney, for which I apologize; instead of to the Sheffield List... I am therefore re-submitting my reply to the List. > Dear List, > Thankyou very much for an expert opinion. I believe that what you say > is true, and the voice of reason. And I bow to superior knowledge. The only > thing I would add is that I do not believe that we can or should today, make > judgements on our Ancestors. The fact is that we do not have enough > information to rule something 'illegal'. It is making a judgement that > cannot be made from this time frame, we can not ever know the full truth of > the matter. Such statments can hurt those who have Ancestors who did not fit > into the exact interpretation of Civil Law...I judge no-one unless I walk in > their shoes... I prefer to think that they were following a more ancient > Law... ... The most we can say is that the rules were interpreted > differently, than written. I also believe that there were grey areas in > interpretation of Civil Law at the time, especially in Sheffield, for the > reasons stated before.. > . I am happy also for the information that it would have been the > Parish Clerk who signed Church documents...I made mention of the fact that > my Ancestor who married her brother in Law after the death of her 1st > husband, did so with the full knowledge and consent of not only her own > brother who was a Dissenting Vicar, but it is known from writings by the > Family Historian, (in 1848-52) that this same Vicar was associated with most > if not all of the Vicars in Sheffield...there was no question of deceit., or > of the Vicar of St. Peters' not knowing my 3Xs Great Aunt's background, as > the family were prominent in Sheffield Society... curiously, although the > Minister of Lee Croft Chapel for many years, Rev. Francis Dixon had himself > buried in St. Peters' Cathedral Churchyard. We still have not figured out > the reason for this. Kindest regards, Josephine. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Reaney" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:07 AM > Subject: [SHEFF] Marriages > > > > Dear All, > > > > With regard to the current discussion on marriages: unless they were > > from a small village the clergy in the 17th & 18th Centuries would not > > know for certain if people presenting themselves for marriage lived in > > their Parish (this is still the case!). The system depends on a large > > degree of trust, and is therefore open to abuse. Banns were and are > > read for three consecutive Sundays and are valid for three months. In > > theory they give opportunity and time for questions over the marriage to > > be raised and investigated. In 21 years as a Vicar no-one has raised > > any objections, although it turns out I have officiated at a bigamous > > wedding --- but that's another story!! > > > > As for the same signature in the Cathedral registers: this would be the > > Parish Clerk who was a combination of Verger and Lay-reader and Church > > Secretary, and not always literate themselves. > > > > Chris Reaney (S.Wales) > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >