podnsod wrote: > All the pr's I have read have had banns very, very, clearly and very > dilberately written. I am thankful for that! Surely we have to have a > little faith and assume that the banns were read. Not all the PRs I've seen have had the actual dates of the banns given but they do say "by Banns", "by Licence" or "by Certificate". In 99.9% of cases I'm sure the banns were read (even if the dates given weren't always three consecutive Sundays!). I'm also equally sure that in a handful of instances, they weren't for reasons we'll never know :)) > Bearing in mind that most of our ancestors were iliterate and who knows > whether they actually went to church on the Sundays the banns were read. That may be so for your ancestors but literacy was much higher than is generally assumed. Looking at the PRs for just your family, won't tell you much, but if you go through whole registers, you'll soon see who had learned to write their name for their wedding, who was reasonably comfortable with a pen and those who could write fluently. Even those ancestors who made a mark may not have actually been unable to write. Those who did make a mark didn't necessarily put a wobbly X or +. Some made quite elaborate marks. Priests were important people, much respected and held in awe, so if he told a bride to "make your mark", she would do just that even if she could write. Being able to read the Bible was important, so most people were able to read at least some of the Bible, even if they couldn't write. Apart from anything else, just because someone may not have been able to read and/or write, doesn't mean they couldn't understand the spoken word. It was also the "done thing" to attend church to hear ones banns read. (My mother had a right go at me for not going to hear mine read on one Sunday!) > Also, given the fact that most of our ancestors were ag/labs and > probably worked on those Sundays they probably didn't know what banns > were!. Again, that may be true of your ancestors but not necessarily everyone else's. Mine were a mix of ag labs, craftsmen, tradesmen, right up to nobility. Even ag labs would have known precisely what banns were. You're confusing illiteracy with ignorance - and ignorant was one thing they were not. Inability to read and/or write doesn't mean they were stupid. They weren't. If you were able to go back to their time, you'd be shocked by the things they knew that you didn't despite all your school learning. Sunday was the one day of the week when they would NOT have worked, except during the harvest. It was the Sabbath and to be kept Holy. It would have meant, for many, attending church 3 times during the day. My grandmother did so every Sunday, until she became too infirm to go. > There is always the parish chest and minutes to read from some church > wardens accounts. Although they don't say who's banns were read I have > read in the St Margaret's Barking Wardens/Parish chest minutes that > "banns were read" in some of these early records. Yes, they do make for very interesting reading, as to the Poor Books. You'd learn a lot from studying the available documents for your parish of interest, which will be difficult for you since you're in America, but the PRs alone will give you much information apart from the basic facts.