Judith, I have photocopies now of Barton's marriage record and what appears on the verso. I will try to get a scan thereof sent to you. If this proves impossible, I will send photocopies. I believe it indeed says Nelly. The N is rather florid, but the elly is very distinct. But nowhere does it have Cambren. All five times it has very clearly Cambern. Only in one of the five instances did it appear to say Camberin. BUT the dot for the would-be "i" clearly comes from the other side of the paper in the word Ludovici (i.e. Louis). This is what I've been able to transcribe. I hope the email enables it to hold its format <XXII>.......| In 1824 Barton........| ego infrascriptus in matrimonium con<unxi> Mattingley..| Barton Mattingley filium Lucae Mattingley &...........| & Nelly Cambern & Elizabeth Cambern Elizabeth.....| filia Zoe Cambern, qui jam coram judi- Cambern.....| ce <..........................................................> ...................| <........................> legitima declaravi. Testes ...................| fuerunt Thomas Layten & Benedict Cambern. ...................| Odin s[acerdos] c[ongregationis] m[issionum] I really don't know where O'Rourke found the date of the civil marriage. Though there are parts which I have not yet unravelled, nothing therein seems to signify "1819" or "five years ago." Till later. Fr. Blaine

Morning Fr. Blaine, I searched for Cambren in all the marriage references I have and did not find that spelling of a surname in any of them, but did find some census records starting in 1830. Search Results: Cambren Your search returned 17 matches in the databases below. 1830 United States Federal Census 1 (New Jersey ) 1870 United States Federal Census 5 1880 United States Federal Census 5 1930 United States Federal Census 6 However, I believe that Cambren is a mis-spelling of Cambron on the record below. Lots of these people were as dyslexic as I am and didn't have spell check. In thinking about all this I think O'Rourke has made an uncharacteristic mistake somewhere along the line, either that or we can't see the trees for the forest. MAYBE The Luke Mattingly that m/1 Miss Spalding and were Jeremiah's parents, (& Barton & Joseph) (History of Union County) m/2 Eleanor (Nelly) Cambron in 1772 (widow Thompson??) (O'Rourke, CATHOLIC FAMILIES OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND) m/3 Betha, widow Cambron, who was the sister-in-law to Nelly (Eleanor) Cambron or some such scenario and the names got mixed up in the process of trying to remember who was who when the priest wrote down the information.(WASHINGTON COUNTY MARRIAGES) It looks like the Witnesses to the marriage were Thomas Layton and Benedict Cambron. O'Rourke says in his MARYLAND CATHOLICS ON THE FRONTIER, p. 238 Thomas Layton was the son of Zachariah Layton b. 1765 SMCM d. c 1839 Perry County MO, and Mary Rineyb. MD & d. Perry County MO Thomas was b c 1802 Washington County, KY, m. Sarah Duvall 1824 in Perryville, Mo, and d. Sept 1,1825 Perry County, MO. Zoe Cambron=none found BUT There is a Zeno Lawrence Cambron b. 1866 s/o Francis M. Cambron s/o James Cambron and Elizabeth Grass. MAYBE Zoe is a man's name in this case. Just a thought. p. 363 of O'Rourke's masterpiece. (MARYLAND CATHOLICS ON THE FRONTIER) He does not list a Benedict Cambron/Cambren and I don't have a good data base of Cambrons. The only Benedict Cambron I have is the s/o E. D. Cambron and Harriett b. 1841 in Kentucky on the 1850 Marion County, KY Census. Maybe somebody else has something. Lots of times the priest recorded Benedict for Bennet or Barnet etc. Judith ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blaine Burkey" <blaineb@slu.edu> To: <MATTINGLY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:54 AM Subject: Re: [MATTINGLY] Luke & Barton Mattingly > Judith, > > I have photocopies now of Barton's marriage record and what appears on > the verso. > > I will try to get a scan thereof sent to you. If this proves impossible, > I will send photocopies. > > I believe it indeed says Nelly. The N is rather florid, but the elly is > very distinct. > > But nowhere does it have Cambren. All five times it has very clearly > Cambern. > > Only in one of the five instances did it appear to say Camberin. BUT the > dot for the would-be "i" clearly comes from the other side of the paper > in the word Ludovici (i.e. Louis). > > This is what I've been able to transcribe. I hope the email enables it > to hold its format > > <XXII>.......| In 1824 > Barton........| ego infrascriptus in matrimonium con<unxi> > Mattingley..| Barton Mattingley filium Lucae Mattingley > &...........| & Nelly Cambern & Elizabeth Cambern > Elizabeth.....| filia Zoe Cambern, qui jam coram judi- > Cambern.....| ce > <..........................................................> > ...................| <........................> legitima > declaravi. Testes > ...................| fuerunt Thomas Layten & Benedict Cambern. > ...................| Odin s[acerdos] c[ongregationis] > m[issionum] > > I really don't know where O'Rourke found the date of the civil marriage. > Though there are parts which I have not yet unravelled, nothing therein > seems to signify "1819" or "five years ago." > > Till later. > > Fr. Blaine > > > ==== MATTINGLY Mailing List ==== > <Z>WELCOME TO THE MATTINGLY GENEALOGY GROUP<Z> > We also have the MattinglyForum-subscribe@egroups.com > Your Host Website http://www.wvi.com/~wb > Rootsweb Host http://resources.rootsweb.com/surnames/m/a/MATTINGLY/ > To Unsubscribe or contact the List Owner MATTINGLY-admin@rootsweb.com > mailto:MATTINGLY-L-request@rootsweb.com?subject=unsubscribe&body=unsubscribe > mailto:MATTINGLY-D-request@rootsweb.com?subject=unsubscribe&body=unsubscribe > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >