I don't know if this applied to all Cathedrals, but this account of mass weddings at Manchester Cathedral was published recently on the Cheshire list The Cathedral charged lower, not higher fees than parish churches. "Another account of multiple weddings from The Bridal Bed by Joseph Braddock ( Robert Hale Ltd. 1960): 'Then there were ... multiple weddings.. .....round the turn of the last century as many as forty couples were married together. One marriage service only was read, but the sacred words of union were spoken by the clergyman to each couple. In the nineteenth century, because of the low fees charged, the Manchester Parish Church became so popular that numerous wholesale weddings took place there. Sir George Head has described, with entertaining detail, one such multiple wedding in The Old Church at Manchester on a Monday morning. " The couples were all poor people, and as to the brides and bridegrooms, as few were dressed in special costume, and all were very generally attended by friends and relatives, it was not easy to say which was which. One party arrived at the church-door evidently wishing to belong to the higher classes, and, though dragged by one solitary horse, made a strenuous effort to outshine. Their carriage, a narrow vis-a-vis fly intended for two persons, now contained four, besides a fat man with bushy whiskers, probably the bride's brother, who occupied the box with the coachman. Within, packed as close as they could possibly sit, on one side were two bridesmaids; opposite to these the bride and bridegroom; the latter a spruce, sandy-haired young man, looking flushed and eager. One of his arms circled the waist of the young lady, on whose blooming countenance he bestowed glances of the very tenderest description - in fact, his looks were so particularly expressive, that, attitude and all considered, I hardly knew whether to compare him, in my mind, to the statue of cupid regarding his Psyche, or a Scotch terrier watching at a rat hole. The people sat in the fly until the church-door was opened, and then the ladies got out and tripped across the pavement into the church. They wore short petticoats and white satin bonnets scooped out under the hind part, with sugar-loaf crowns, and their back hair underneath combed upwards. When all was ready, and the church-doors opened, the clergyman and clerk betook themselves to the vestry, and the people who were about to be married and their friends seated themselves in the body of the church opposite the communion-table, on benches placed there for the purpose. There was little 'mauvais honte' among the women, but of the men, poor fellows! some were seriously abashed. At the advance of a sheepish-looking bridegroom, he was immediately assailed on all sides with, 'Come in, man; what art afraid of? Nobody'll hurt thee.' And then a general laugh went round in a suppressed tone, but quite sufficient to confound and subdue the newcomer. At last a sudden buzz broke out - 'the clergyman's coming!' and then all was perfectly silent. About twelve couples were there to be married; the rest were friends and attendants. The clerk now called upon the former to arrange themselves together round the altar. In appointing them to their proper places, he addressed each in an intonation of voice particularly soft and soothing, and which carried with it the more of encouragement as he made use of no appellative but the Christian name of the person spoken to. Thus he proceeded: 'Daniel and Phoebe; this way, Daniel; take off your gloves, Daniel. - William and Anne; no, Anne; here, Anne; t'other side, William. - John and Mary; here, John; oh, John; gently, John'. And then addressing them all together:'Now all of you give your hats to some person to hold.' Although the marriage service was generally addressed to the whole party, the clergyman was scrupulously exact in obtaining the accurate responses from each individual." Another story has been reported of the Rev. Joshua Brookes, who also ministered at this church, that once, having been told that he had accidently joined in wedlock the wrong parties, replied~~~~~:"Pair as you go out; you're all married; pair as you go out".' Apologies if this is off topic. Am researching a Herefordshire family, 17th C who were leaseholders and renters. Two generations married in Hereford Cathedral. From other documents they were not wealthy, just your ordinary country yokels. My question - what was the difference in fees for a cathedral wedding and a rural parish wedding at this period? I am trying to firm up on who paid the (presumably) higher fees -in this case the in-laws perhaps. I presume many Cathedral weddings were a matter of "status"? Appreciate your comments. Adrtian ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Someone replied to my post about marriage fees in cathedrals but unfortunately it managed to delete before I'd read it - would you re-post please ? ... Elizabeth Atherton ..... this account of mass weddings at Manchester Cathedral was published recently on the Cheshire list The Cathedral charged lower, not higher fees than parish churches. "Another account of multiple weddings from The Bridal Bed by Joseph Braddock ( Robert Hale Ltd. 1960): 'Then there were ... multiple weddings.. .....round the turn of the last century as many as forty couples were married together. One marriage service only was read, but the sacred words of union were spoken by the clergyman to each couple. In the nineteenth century, because of the low fees charged, the Manchester Parish Church became so popular that numerous wholesale weddings took place there. Sir George Head has described, with entertaining detail, one such multiple wedding in The Old Church at Manchester on a Monday morning. " The couples were all poor people, and as to the brides and bridegrooms, as few were dressed in special costume, and all were very generally attended by friends and relatives, it was not easy to say which was which. One party arrived at the church-door evidently wishing to belong to the higher classes, and, though dragged by one solitary horse, made a strenuous effort to outshine. Their carriage, a narrow vis-a-vis fly intended for two persons, now contained four, besides a fat man with bushy whiskers, probably the bride's brother, who occupied the box with the coachman. Within, packed as close as they could possibly sit, on one side were two bridesmaids; opposite to these the bride and bridegroom; the latter a spruce, sandy-haired young man, looking flushed and eager. One of his arms circled the waist of the young lady, on whose blooming countenance he bestowed glances of the very tenderest description - in fact, his looks were so particularly expressive, that, attitude and all considered, I hardly knew whether to compare him, in my mind, to the statue of cupid regarding his Psyche, or a Scotch terrier watching at a rat hole. The people sat in the fly until the church-door was opened, and then the ladies got out and tripped across the pavement into the church. They wore short petticoats and white satin bonnets scooped out under the hind part, with sugar-loaf crowns, and their back hair underneath combed upwards. When all was ready, and the church-doors opened, the clergyman and clerk betook themselves to the vestry, and the people who were about to be married and their friends seated themselves in the body of the church opposite the communion-table, on benches placed there for the purpose. There was little 'mauvais honte' among the women, but of the men, poor fellows! some were seriously abashed. At the advance of a sheepish-looking bridegroom, he was immediately assailed on all sides with, 'Come in, man; what art afraid of? Nobody'll hurt thee.' And then a general laugh went round in a suppressed tone, but quite sufficient to confound and subdue the newcomer. At last a sudden buzz broke out - 'the clergyman's coming!' and then all was perfectly silent. About twelve couples were there to be married; the rest were friends and attendants. The clerk now called upon the former to arrange themselves together round the altar. In appointing them to their proper places, he addressed each in an intonation of voice particularly soft and soothing, and which carried with it the more of encouragement as he made use of no appellative but the Christian name of the person spoken to. Thus he proceeded: 'Daniel and Phoebe; this way, Daniel; take off your gloves, Daniel. - William and Anne; no, Anne; here, Anne; t'other side, William. - John and Mary; here, John; oh, John; gently, John'. And then addressing them all together:'Now all of you give your hats to some person to hold.' Although the marriage service was generally addressed to the whole party, the clergyman was scrupulously exact in obtaining the accurate responses from each individual." Another story has been reported of the Rev. Joshua Brookes, who also ministered at this church, that once, having been told that he had accidently joined in wedlock the wrong parties, replied~~~~~:"Pair as you go out; you're all married; pair as you go out".' Apologies if this is off topic. Am researching a Herefordshire family, 17th C who were leaseholders and renters. Two generations married in Hereford Cathedral. From other documents they were not wealthy, just your ordinary country yokels. My question - what was the difference in fees for a cathedral wedding and a rural parish wedding at this period? I am trying to firm up on who paid the (presumably) higher fees -in this case the in-laws perhaps. I presume many Cathedral weddings were a matter of "status"? Appreciate your comments. Adrtian ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH