Hi Jean First thing to say is that not all coroners records survive or are available They were the property of the coroner, some deposited them others didn't I would address your enquiry to the Norfolk records office, Jeremy Gibson & Colin Rogers book, Coroners Records in England and Wales lists several record series but whether the inquests have survived I can't say, often there are only listings left, they should be able to tell you Also check the online newspapers, often the only record available, not all inquests were reported on, the more unusual the more likely it would be in the papers, much as today Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 20/06/2016 05:12, mjquilts via wrote: > > Can anyone tell me how to access an inquest record for 1907 in Norwich. > > Thank you > Jean

Not necessarily an error Robin. Norfolk people "du different" and spelt things however they felt. All spellings were acceptable. Kate ----Original message---- >From : norfolk@rootsweb.com Date : 20/06/2016 - 06:15 (GMTST) To : norfolk@rootsweb.com Subject : [NFK] Ingoldisthorpe census spelling error on Ancestry On Ancestry I've noticed that Ingoldisthorpe is sometimes transcribed as Ingoldesthorpe. In fact the entire 1901 Census seems have been transcribed this way. So if you've been looking for someone who lived there and couldn't find them, now you might. I've contacted Ancestry to let them know about the error. Robin Poole. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Exhibition in St Edmund Church Horningtoft, Norfolk. 25th & 26th June 10-4 with refreshments. Time period of exhibition 1743 to 1849. Fall of church tower 1792. Newspaper articles from Findmypast. Some of the Names researched Branford, Blyth, Dodman, Drew,  Finch, Franklyn, Goodwyn, Hastings, Holland, Kendall, Mallett, Moy, Pye, Raven, Reeve Rippingale, Russell, Senkler.  Many more items of interest. www.horningtoft.org.uk  Heather GoochHorningtoft Heritage Society Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Ancestry I've noticed that Ingoldisthorpe is sometimes transcribed as Ingoldesthorpe. In fact the entire 1901 Census seems have been transcribed this way. So if you've been looking for someone who lived there and couldn't find them, now you might. I've contacted Ancestry to let them know about the error. Robin Poole.

Can anyone tell me how to access an inquest record for 1907 in Norwich. Thank you Jean

Hi Nivard, Many thanks for this. It seems that there are only two register image on line for that Parish, and very sparsely populated. Looking at Google Maps, Threxton almost doesn’t exist. I did find another entry for Mary Bunnet baptised in Threxton in 1811, parents Richard Bunnett & Elizabeth Friar. By a piece of good fortune, Richard Bunnett (of Castle Acre) married Elizabeth Fryer (of Great Dunham) on 11/12/1804 in Great Dunham. Even greater good fortune Richard Bunnett and Elizabeth Fryer baptised Ann Bunnett in Castle acre in 26/5/1805 Richard Bunnet and Elizabeth baptised Lydia (Lyde) Bunnett in Castle Acre 13/3/1808 Lydia & John Bird returned to Threxton to baptise their first born (Susannah) (16/7/1826) So, 1 family found, and now to discover who/what they did. Thanks and regards Mike > On 6 Jun 2016, at 15:44, Nivard Ovington via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > The marriage is in the PRs on findmypast > > John BIRD of the parish of Great Cressingham singleman and Lydia BUNNETT > of this parish singlewoman > Were married in this church by banns this twenty fourth day of March in > the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty six > By me C MARCON? Officiating Minister > This marriage was solemnized between us John BIRD X (made his mark) and > Lydia BUNNETT (signed) > In the presence of James MORLEY (signed) & Sarah DENNIS X (made her mark) > > It may also be of interest that Lydia BUNNETT signed as witness for the > previous marriage for a James STUBBINGS and Ann BUNNETT 14th Oct 1824 > > The previous page has marriages in 1816, 1818 & 1823 which seems odd, > either very few marriages or a clerks catch up > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 06/06/2016 15:19, Mike Burnham via wrote: >> Hi All, >> Are these PR’s visible to the public? >> >> I am looking at/for Lydia Bunnett/Burnett/Bennett who married a John Bird (Birch?) >> >> The online details differ between all the above options >> >> John Bird & Lydia settled in Great Cressingham after their marriage >> Their first child (Susan Bird) was baptised in July 1826 in Threxton >> They married in Threxton in May 1826 but >> >> FreeReg shows John’s name as Birch >> Family search shows it as Bird >> >> and the number of Bunnett/Burnett/Bennett life events in Threaten are very limited, and >> excludes Lydia from the images I have seen. >> >> Any help greatly appreciated >> Thanks and regards >> Mike > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The marriage is in the PRs on findmypast John BIRD of the parish of Great Cressingham singleman and Lydia BUNNETT of this parish singlewoman Were married in this church by banns this twenty fourth day of March in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty six By me C MARCON? Officiating Minister This marriage was solemnized between us John BIRD X (made his mark) and Lydia BUNNETT (signed) In the presence of James MORLEY (signed) & Sarah DENNIS X (made her mark) It may also be of interest that Lydia BUNNETT signed as witness for the previous marriage for a James STUBBINGS and Ann BUNNETT 14th Oct 1824 The previous page has marriages in 1816, 1818 & 1823 which seems odd, either very few marriages or a clerks catch up Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 06/06/2016 15:19, Mike Burnham via wrote: > Hi All, > Are these PR’s visible to the public? > > I am looking at/for Lydia Bunnett/Burnett/Bennett who married a John Bird (Birch?) > > The online details differ between all the above options > > John Bird & Lydia settled in Great Cressingham after their marriage > Their first child (Susan Bird) was baptised in July 1826 in Threxton > They married in Threxton in May 1826 but > > FreeReg shows John’s name as Birch > Family search shows it as Bird > > and the number of Bunnett/Burnett/Bennett life events in Threaten are very limited, and > excludes Lydia from the images I have seen. > > Any help greatly appreciated > Thanks and regards > Mike

Hi All, Are these PR’s visible to the public? I am looking at/for Lydia Bunnett/Burnett/Bennett who married a John Bird (Birch?) The online details differ between all the above options John Bird & Lydia settled in Great Cressingham after their marriage Their first child (Susan Bird) was baptised in July 1826 in Threxton They married in Threxton in May 1826 but FreeReg shows John’s name as Birch Family search shows it as Bird and the number of Bunnett/Burnett/Bennett life events in Threaten are very limited, and excludes Lydia from the images I have seen. Any help greatly appreciated Thanks and regards Mike

Hi I am writing to provide an update on the 1891 census project. One further piece has been uploaded to the on line database and is now searchable for free on the main Freecen site at http://www.freecen.org.uk This is Piece RG12/1528 West Wymer (Norwich) which covers the parishes of Heigham, St Andrew, St Benedict, St Gregory, St John Maddermarket, St Lawrence, St Margaret, St Swithin This means that there are now 371,958 (86.4%) 1891 Norfolk census records available to search free on line. Many thanks to all the volunteers who have kindly given up their free time to assist with the project without their help this information would not be available. Please see the main Freecen site or my website (see my signature for a link) for details of which pieces are on line. Finally don’t forget that a complete transcription for the Norfolk 1861 and 1871 census is available on the FreeCen site. Hope this helps you in your research Bev -- Bev Howlett FreeCen Co-Ordinator Norfolk 1861,1871,1891 Cambridge 1891 Surrey 1871,1891 Find Out How To Help http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/bevsnorfolkinfo/ http://www.freecen.org.uk

2nd edition only came out at end of April - seems to have taken a while to appear on UK websites. It is not even up on the publishers site yet! I asked the publisher about the changes - this is what they said: "If you have the first edition you won’t need this new one - there were a couple of copy errors to correct in the first edition (e.g. a reference to marriage to a “brother’s husband” rather than a “husband’s brother”), minor updates to the law where it now relates to same-sex marriages, and a couple of additional examples of interesting cases that had been raised by readers." regards Keith On 26-May-16 5:34 PM, Donna Casey wrote: > Keith, > "Marriage Law for Genealogists" is on Amazon.com and offered with both 2012 and 2016 versions. > Same author, same title, different cover. > Donna > > > > ________________________________ > From: Keith Drage <drageke@ntlworld.com> > To: Donna Casey <donnacasey@yahoo.com>; Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; "norfolk@rootsweb.com" <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 11:42 AM > Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks > > > The copy I have is dated "First published in 2012" and I cannot see a > later version referenced anywhere. > > As a university academician she has published a number of books on this > subject and related issues. > > Are you perhaps referring to "Divorced, Bigamist, Bereaved?" which is > the later book addressed to a family history readership, but not > covering the same subject matter. I have not got this one, but if the > thoroughly readable style persists then it is probably worth also reading. > > Her full list of publications can be accessed from here: > > http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/people/probert > > regards > > Keith > > > On 26-May-16 4:05 PM, Donna Casey wrote: >> Keith, Do you happen to know if the new version (2016) has any distinct advantages/information over the 2012 version of this publication. >> It looks as if it might be a very handy resource. >> Donna TILLINGHAST Casey >> Michigan, USA >> >> Duty first, self second. >> Lilibet >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Keith Drage via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> >> To: Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; norfolk@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:00 AM >> Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks >> >> >> The cleric was however wrong, at least for the period under discussion. >> >> In England and Wales, between 1660 (the restoration) and 1835, such a >> marriage was only void if challenged in the courts during the lifetime >> of the participants and ruled to be so. >> >> The assumption is that if that had occurred, the cleric would have >> mentioned it. >> >> As such the child was not a bastard. >> >> If the marriage had occurred after 1835 (and before 1907), it would have >> been void, i.e. as if it had never occurred. This law change also >> rendered any such marriage that had not been previously challenged made >> before 1835. >> >> The 1907 change removed the restriction on marrying deceased wife's >> sister, and also made valid any such prior marriages. >> >> I recommend Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists. >> >> regards >> >> Keith Drage >> Swindon UK >> >> >> On 26-May-16 2:25 PM, Norfolk FreeREG via wrote: >>> Hi Linda, >>> >>> I have just come across one that might interest you. >>> >>> Broxted in Essex >>> 28 Mar 1773 Samuel son of John and Sarah FRANKLIN >>> Sarah his wife so called (having privily married and contrary to >>> express statute * his late wifes sister in blood); this child in the >>> eye of the law is a bastard and the marriage null and void >>> >>> Julie >>> >>> On 15 May 2016 at 18:25, Linda Wright via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>>> Well you lovely people you certainly came up trumps. Thank you all so much who sent me examples some off list. I knew that you wouldn’t let me down! >>>> >>>> They were certainly different times. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> Linda >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>

Thanks for checking that.I hunted around for some information but did not call publisher.Thanks.  Have purchased the earlier version since I was able to get it at a much more affordable price.Thanks again, I believe the section/s referring to laws etc., for the 17th C will help me a great deal.Donna  Duty first, self second.Lilibet From: Keith Drage <drageke@ntlworld.com> To: Donna Casey <donnacasey@yahoo.com>; Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; "norfolk@rootsweb.com" <norfolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 12:00 PM Subject: Marriage Law for Genealogists: was [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks 2nd edition only came out at end of April - seems to have taken a while to appear on UK websites. It is not even up on the publishers site yet! I asked the publisher about the changes - this is what they said: "If you have the first edition you won’t need this new one - there were a couple of copy errors to correct in the first edition (e.g. a reference to marriage to a “brother’s husband” rather than a “husband’s brother”), minor updates to the law where it now relates to same-sex marriages, and a couple of additional examples of interesting cases that had been raised by readers." regards Keith On 26-May-16 5:34 PM, Donna Casey wrote: > Keith, > "Marriage Law for Genealogists" is on Amazon.com and offered with both 2012 and 2016 versions. > Same author, same title, different cover. > Donna > > > > ________________________________ > From: Keith Drage <drageke@ntlworld.com> > To: Donna Casey <donnacasey@yahoo.com>; Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; "norfolk@rootsweb.com" <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 11:42 AM > Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks > > > The copy I have is dated "First published in 2012" and I cannot see a > later version referenced anywhere. > > As a university academician she has published a number of books on this > subject and related issues. > > Are you perhaps referring to "Divorced, Bigamist, Bereaved?" which is > the later book addressed to a family history readership, but not > covering the same subject matter. I have not got this one, but if the > thoroughly readable style persists then it is probably worth also reading. > > Her full list of publications can be accessed from here: > > http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/people/probert > > regards > > Keith > > > On 26-May-16 4:05 PM, Donna Casey wrote: >> Keith, Do you happen to know if the new version (2016) has any distinct advantages/information over the 2012 version of this publication. >> It looks as if it might be a very handy resource. >> Donna TILLINGHAST Casey >> Michigan, USA >>  >> Duty first, self second. >> Lilibet >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Keith Drage via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> >> To: Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; norfolk@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:00 AM >> Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks >> >> >> The cleric was however wrong, at least for the period under discussion. >> >> In England and Wales, between 1660 (the restoration) and 1835, such a >> marriage was only void if challenged in the courts during the lifetime >> of the participants and ruled to be so. >> >> The assumption is that if that had occurred, the cleric would have >> mentioned it. >> >> As such the child was not a bastard. >> >> If the marriage had occurred after 1835 (and before 1907), it would have >> been void, i.e. as if it had never occurred. This law change also >> rendered any such marriage that had not been previously challenged made >> before 1835. >> >> The 1907 change removed the restriction on marrying deceased wife's >> sister, and also made valid any such prior marriages. >> >> I recommend Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists. >> >> regards >> >> Keith Drage >> Swindon UK >> >> >> On 26-May-16 2:25 PM, Norfolk FreeREG via wrote: >>> Hi Linda, >>> >>> I have just come across one that might interest you. >>> >>> Broxted in Essex >>> 28 Mar 1773 Samuel son of John and Sarah FRANKLIN >>> Sarah his wife so called (having privily married and contrary to >>> express statute * his late wifes sister in blood); this child in the >>> eye of the law is a bastard and the marriage null and void >>> >>> Julie >>> >>> On 15 May 2016 at 18:25, Linda Wright via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>>> Well you lovely people you certainly came up trumps. Thank you all so much who sent me examples some off list. I knew that you wouldn’t let me down! >>>> >>>> They were certainly different times. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> Linda >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>

Have you tried freereg - they are listed as being done. http://freereg2.freereg.org.uk/freereg_contents/5409e48feca9ebd28e5a7d29/show_register Julie On 27-May-16 1:13 AM, seacat55 via wrote: > Hello Listers. I was wondering if anyone has access to the early Dunston Parish Registers? Family Search has them from 1754 onwards. Unfortunately, the names I am interested in are from 1703 to 1744. > They are as follows: Samantha Blaxtor d. 23 Feb 1703, Father: Anthony Mother: Sarah > Amy Blaxtor d. 23 Feb 1703, Father: Anthony Mother: Sarah > > Anthony Blaxtor d. 14 Jul 1714, Samuel Blaxtor d Aug 1714, Mary Blaxtor d. 30 Dec 1716 Sarah Blaxtor d. Sep 1744. > > I suspect these people may be Blaxters. > > Many Thanks > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > . > -- Julie Harold FreeREG Norfolk Coordinator http://www.freereg.org.uk --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 27 May 2016 2:13 AM, seacat55 via wrote: > Hello Listers. I was wondering if anyone has access to the early Dunston Parish Registers? FreeREG (http://freereg2.freereg.org.uk) seems to have records dating from about 1550 -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

Hello Listers. I was wondering if anyone has access to the early Dunston Parish Registers? Family Search has them from 1754 onwards. Unfortunately, the names I am interested in are from 1703 to 1744. They are as follows: Samantha Blaxtor d. 23 Feb 1703, Father: Anthony Mother: Sarah Amy Blaxtor d. 23 Feb 1703, Father: Anthony Mother: Sarah Anthony Blaxtor d. 14 Jul 1714, Samuel Blaxtor d Aug 1714, Mary Blaxtor d. 30 Dec 1716 Sarah Blaxtor d. Sep 1744. I suspect these people may be Blaxters. Many Thanks

Hi just seen your post re Blaxtor's and Blaxter's - we used to have an Audrey Blaxter living two doors from us for many years here in Leicester . Its not a surname that comes up very often so there would perhaps be some link or connection - also believe there was a Nottingham and/or east coast connection . Mick Wilson . ________________________________ From: seacat55@bigpond.com <seacat55@bigpond.com> Sent: 27 May 2016 01:13 To: norfolk@rootsweb.com Subject: [NFK] Dunston Parish Registers Hello Listers. I was wondering if anyone has access to the early Dunston Parish Registers? Family Search has them from 1754 onwards. Unfortunately, the names I am interested in are from 1703 to 1744. They are as follows: Samantha Blaxtor d. 23 Feb 1703, Father: Anthony Mother: Sarah Amy Blaxtor d. 23 Feb 1703, Father: Anthony Mother: Sarah Anthony Blaxtor d. 14 Jul 1714, Samuel Blaxtor d Aug 1714, Mary Blaxtor d. 30 Dec 1716 Sarah Blaxtor d. Sep 1744. I suspect these people may be Blaxters. Many Thanks

The copy I have is dated "First published in 2012" and I cannot see a later version referenced anywhere. As a university academician she has published a number of books on this subject and related issues. Are you perhaps referring to "Divorced, Bigamist, Bereaved?" which is the later book addressed to a family history readership, but not covering the same subject matter. I have not got this one, but if the thoroughly readable style persists then it is probably worth also reading. Her full list of publications can be accessed from here: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/people/probert regards Keith On 26-May-16 4:05 PM, Donna Casey wrote: > Keith, Do you happen to know if the new version (2016) has any distinct advantages/information over the 2012 version of this publication. > It looks as if it might be a very handy resource. > Donna TILLINGHAST Casey > Michigan, USA > > Duty first, self second. > Lilibet > > > > ________________________________ > From: Keith Drage via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > To: Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; norfolk@rootsweb.com > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:00 AM > Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks > > > The cleric was however wrong, at least for the period under discussion. > > In England and Wales, between 1660 (the restoration) and 1835, such a > marriage was only void if challenged in the courts during the lifetime > of the participants and ruled to be so. > > The assumption is that if that had occurred, the cleric would have > mentioned it. > > As such the child was not a bastard. > > If the marriage had occurred after 1835 (and before 1907), it would have > been void, i.e. as if it had never occurred. This law change also > rendered any such marriage that had not been previously challenged made > before 1835. > > The 1907 change removed the restriction on marrying deceased wife's > sister, and also made valid any such prior marriages. > > I recommend Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists. > > regards > > Keith Drage > Swindon UK > > > On 26-May-16 2:25 PM, Norfolk FreeREG via wrote: >> Hi Linda, >> >> I have just come across one that might interest you. >> >> Broxted in Essex >> 28 Mar 1773 Samuel son of John and Sarah FRANKLIN >> Sarah his wife so called (having privily married and contrary to >> express statute * his late wifes sister in blood); this child in the >> eye of the law is a bastard and the marriage null and void >> >> Julie >> >> On 15 May 2016 at 18:25, Linda Wright via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> Well you lovely people you certainly came up trumps. Thank you all so much who sent me examples some off list. I knew that you wouldn’t let me down! >>> >>> They were certainly different times. >>> >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Linda >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Keith, "Marriage Law for Genealogists" is on Amazon.com and offered with both 2012 and 2016 versions. Same author, same title, different cover. Donna ________________________________ From: Keith Drage <drageke@ntlworld.com> To: Donna Casey <donnacasey@yahoo.com>; Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; "norfolk@rootsweb.com" <norfolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks The copy I have is dated "First published in 2012" and I cannot see a later version referenced anywhere. As a university academician she has published a number of books on this subject and related issues. Are you perhaps referring to "Divorced, Bigamist, Bereaved?" which is the later book addressed to a family history readership, but not covering the same subject matter. I have not got this one, but if the thoroughly readable style persists then it is probably worth also reading. Her full list of publications can be accessed from here: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/people/probert regards Keith On 26-May-16 4:05 PM, Donna Casey wrote: > Keith, Do you happen to know if the new version (2016) has any distinct advantages/information over the 2012 version of this publication. > It looks as if it might be a very handy resource. > Donna TILLINGHAST Casey > Michigan, USA > > Duty first, self second. > Lilibet > > > > ________________________________ > From: Keith Drage via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > To: Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; norfolk@rootsweb.com > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:00 AM > Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks > > > The cleric was however wrong, at least for the period under discussion. > > In England and Wales, between 1660 (the restoration) and 1835, such a > marriage was only void if challenged in the courts during the lifetime > of the participants and ruled to be so. > > The assumption is that if that had occurred, the cleric would have > mentioned it. > > As such the child was not a bastard. > > If the marriage had occurred after 1835 (and before 1907), it would have > been void, i.e. as if it had never occurred. This law change also > rendered any such marriage that had not been previously challenged made > before 1835. > > The 1907 change removed the restriction on marrying deceased wife's > sister, and also made valid any such prior marriages. > > I recommend Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists. > > regards > > Keith Drage > Swindon UK > > > On 26-May-16 2:25 PM, Norfolk FreeREG via wrote: >> Hi Linda, >> >> I have just come across one that might interest you. >> >> Broxted in Essex >> 28 Mar 1773 Samuel son of John and Sarah FRANKLIN >> Sarah his wife so called (having privily married and contrary to >> express statute * his late wifes sister in blood); this child in the >> eye of the law is a bastard and the marriage null and void >> >> Julie >> >> On 15 May 2016 at 18:25, Linda Wright via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> Well you lovely people you certainly came up trumps. Thank you all so much who sent me examples some off list. I knew that you wouldn’t let me down! >>> >>> They were certainly different times. >>> >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Linda >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

From what I read, it had more of Archbishop Parker in it than Moses. The old Roman Catholic list of prohibited degrees that preceded it was much more extensive and closer to the Leviticus list, with the caveat that if you paid the Pope enough, he could always override it. The list from Archbishop Parker in the new Book of Common Prayer from 1563, was more logical from a biological viewpoint - or at least the 16th century view on that, but had no waivers short of an act of parliament (which is indeed how it has changed over the years). The colonies of course inherited this list, until they decided they wanted to make their own laws. regards Keith Drage On 26-May-16 3:30 PM, Rosemary Jones via wrote: > This is the old biblical law "thou shalt not marry deceased wife's sister" > that went to the Virginia Colonies and was law there as well. > > One of my husband's gt grandfathers managed to marry his deceased wife's > sister by having a son in the legislature and getting the law changed. The > son then stood up with the father at the second marriage. > > It pays to have a lawmaker in the family. > > Rosemary > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Norfolk FreeREG via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Linda, >> >> I have just come across one that might interest you. >> >> Broxted in Essex >> 28 Mar 1773 Samuel son of John and Sarah FRANKLIN >> Sarah his wife so called (having privily married and contrary to >> express statute * his late wifes sister in blood); this child in the >> eye of the law is a bastard and the marriage null and void >> >> Julie >> >> On 15 May 2016 at 18:25, Linda Wright via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> Well you lovely people you certainly came up trumps. Thank you all so >> much who sent me examples some off list. I knew that you wouldn’t let me >> down! >>> They were certainly different times. >>> >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Linda >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> -- >> Julie Harold >> FreeREG Norfolk Coordinator >> freereg.norfolk@gmail.com >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Keith, Do you happen to know if the new version (2016) has any distinct advantages/information over the 2012 version of this publication. It looks as if it might be a very handy resource. Donna TILLINGHAST Casey Michigan, USA Duty first, self second. Lilibet ________________________________ From: Keith Drage via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> To: Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; norfolk@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks The cleric was however wrong, at least for the period under discussion. In England and Wales, between 1660 (the restoration) and 1835, such a marriage was only void if challenged in the courts during the lifetime of the participants and ruled to be so. The assumption is that if that had occurred, the cleric would have mentioned it. As such the child was not a bastard. If the marriage had occurred after 1835 (and before 1907), it would have been void, i.e. as if it had never occurred. This law change also rendered any such marriage that had not been previously challenged made before 1835. The 1907 change removed the restriction on marrying deceased wife's sister, and also made valid any such prior marriages. I recommend Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists. regards Keith Drage Swindon UK On 26-May-16 2:25 PM, Norfolk FreeREG via wrote: > Hi Linda, > > I have just come across one that might interest you. > > Broxted in Essex > 28 Mar 1773 Samuel son of John and Sarah FRANKLIN > Sarah his wife so called (having privily married and contrary to > express statute * his late wifes sister in blood); this child in the > eye of the law is a bastard and the marriage null and void > > Julie > > On 15 May 2016 at 18:25, Linda Wright via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> Well you lovely people you certainly came up trumps. Thank you all so much who sent me examples some off list. I knew that you wouldn’t let me down! >> >> They were certainly different times. >> >> >> Best wishes >> >> Linda >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Keith, Do you happen to know if the new version (2016) has any distinct advantages/information over the 2012 version of this publication.It looks as if it might be a very handy resource.Donna TILLINGHAST CaseyMichigan, USA Duty first, self second.Lilibet From: Keith Drage via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> To: Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; norfolk@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks The cleric was however wrong, at least for the period under discussion. In England and Wales, between 1660 (the restoration) and 1835, such a marriage was only void if challenged in the courts during the lifetime of the participants and ruled to be so. The assumption is that if that had occurred, the cleric would have mentioned it. As such the child was not a bastard. If the marriage had occurred after 1835 (and before 1907), it would have been void, i.e. as if it had never occurred. This law change also rendered any such marriage that had not been previously challenged made before 1835. The 1907 change removed the restriction on marrying deceased wife's sister, and also made valid any such prior marriages. I recommend Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists. regards Keith Drage Swindon UK On 26-May-16 2:25 PM, Norfolk FreeREG via wrote: > Hi Linda, > > I have just come across one that might interest you. > > Broxted in Essex > 28 Mar 1773 Samuel son of John and Sarah FRANKLIN > Sarah his wife so called (having privily married and contrary to > express statute * his late wifes sister in blood); this child in the > eye of the law is a bastard and the marriage null and void > > Julie > > On 15 May 2016 at 18:25, Linda Wright via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> Well you lovely people you certainly came up trumps. Thank you all so much who sent me examples some off list. I knew that you wouldn’t let me down! >> >> They were certainly different times. >> >> >> Best wishes >> >> Linda >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message