Hi Richard, I wonder if you might be getting "hung up" (for want of a better phrase) on the word "marriage" without remembering that a couple marry by the act of cohabiting. Today this would be termed a "common law marriage," but I've never seen a direct reference to what it was called in earlier times. It was a common state in areas of (to become) Canada where churches and ministers were scarce. A common law marriage might (or might not) be "solemnized," with a church service and register signing, etc., at a later, more convenient time. Strictly then, the word "solemnized" only means that two people partook in a church service and the appropriate announcement and registrations were made. Might the marriage you are talking about have already been established as a common law union where the couple lived and the solemnization have been conducted when it was possible to visit another set of relatives (the wife's?) Generally what we record as a "marriage" in our family trees is actually a solemnization, not the "marriage" in the legal sense of the term. It's just a practical thing, because the solemnization is all that is actually recorded. --------------- I just read this back and had a vision of getting hundreds of irate replies from infuriated listers, so let me hasten to add that I'm not casting aspersions on anyone's ancestors. I'm sure all your ancestors followed the best social conventions in their relationships. I'm just pointing out the possible explanations in the semantics of the phrase, "to get their marriage "official" solemnized" in Richard's posting. Malcolm Archive CD Books Canada Inc. President: Malcolm Moody PO Box 11 Manotick Ontario, K4M 1A2 Canada. (613) 692-2667 WEB SITE: http://www.ArchiveCDBooks.ca > Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:53:14 -0800 > From: "Richard Hardwick" <RiHardwick@comcast.net> > Subject: [NS-L] Fw: Marriage Solemnized - Continuing > To: "NS ednet list" <NSroots@ednet.ns.ca>, "NOVA-SCOTIA" > <NOVA-SCOTIA@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <005701c78186$3cd4d390$45efb543@P4R800VM> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hello again > > Just an update from a several responders. Possible scenarios: > > (1) It may have been that the members of this marriage were part of a > religious sect that only had their "official" minister available in > Hants County where they traveled from the "other" county of marriage > (be it Kings or Halifax) to Hants County to get their marriage > "official" solemnized. > > (2) Or it could have been that one member of the wedding party was > born in Hants county while the other member was born/married > elsewhere. For the Halifax County marriage that shows up on the Hants > County books, it appears that the husband was born in Kings County > while it doesn't indicate where the wife was born. Maybe she was born > in Hants County? And therefore was listed in Hants after marriage? > > (3) For the Kings County marriage that shows up on the Hants County > books, the husband was also born in Kings County, and again, it > doesn't indicate where the wife was born. In each of these marriages, > the wife was also residing in Kings County at time of marriage. Could > this wife have been born in Hants County as well? > > (4) If this is the case in (2) and (3) above, the next question ought > to be - Why are these 2 marriages not listed in the Halifax Book or > the Kings County Book? Only found in the Hants County Book. > > (5) Further ideas welcomed > > Richard