Catholic marriages were not recognised after the Hardwicke Act, so an Anglican wedding was necessary (until 1837) in order for the children to be accepted as legitimate. It may be of interest that the Catholic church in these circumstances recognised Anglican marriages for Catholics, such as the secret wedding of the future George IV and Mrs Fitzherbert. Elizabeth Silverthorne

I also have a duplicate church marriage in my records. But this was (1) in a Catholic chapel on one day, and (2) a parish church (CofE) on the next. This was late 18th century. Would the 1754 act have made this necessary, even after Catholic worship was permitted? I believe Quakers and Jews had their marriages automatically recognised, but not so sure about Catholics. david beakhust dave@beakhust.com -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Beach [mailto:geoff@beachfamily.plus.com] Sent: 07 April 2006 15:40 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [SoG] Re: Duplicate marriages? Hi Steve, both of these were Church weddings, initially I had thought the 2nd might be a mis-allocated baptism, but it seems not to be. Geoff South Wales -----Original Message----- From: Steve Chapman [mailto:schap@seleston.co.uk] Sent: 07 April 2006 12:28 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SoG] Re: Duplicate marriages? I have two cases where there are duplicate marriages. In both, the first was in a register office, and the second in church. One of these was my mother-in-law and my wife's birthday is slightly less premature in relation to the first marriage! The second marriage, a month later in church, still records the couple as being spinster & bachelor ! I am told by my brother-in-law that on informing the registrar about his mother's death, & mentioning the two marriages that eyebrows were "raised". It seems that once the family found out then "proper thing" had to be done. Steve Chapman Winterborne Zelston, Dorset. www.seleston.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Beach" <geoff@beachfamily.plus.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:34 PM Subject: Duplicate marriages? > Listers, > Can anyone shed a ray of light to the issue I have with my ancestor > Thomas, > his 3rd marriage was at Bermondsey in October 1810, and later he marries > the > same spinster with the same name in Southwark in June 1811. I have copies > of > the relevant entries, so I'm not relying on IGI data, although it happens > to > be correct. > Appreciate any help, > Regards, > Geoff > South Wales. > > ______________________________ ______________________________ This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos anti-virus technology -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 16/09/2005

I have several similar from Lowland Scotland. They seem to be consistent with marriage ceremony of husband and wife in each of their home parishes. Arthur Thomson Kay DONALD CLARK wrote: > Dear Geoff > > I have had a very similar experience but in Scotland which may make > this reply superfluous! > > My couple were married on exactly the same day in two different > places. In the end I have decided that they were married in the local > church and then the register entries were sent in to the main church > and entered again. There were several miles between the two. I have > consulted others on this and nobody has a better explanation. Some of > the other marriages around the same time were in both registers and > some were not so I couldn't account for that. These were not Banns > but the bride and groom could have come from each of the churches. I > have not yet found their births. We are talking 1792 here. > > Is it possible that Bermondsey had to report to Southwark being the > "senior" church? > > Kay > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Beach" > <geoff@beachfamily.plus.com> > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:34 PM > Subject: [SoG] Duplicate marriages? > > >> Listers, >> Can anyone shed a ray of light to the issue I have with my ancestor >> Thomas, >> his 3rd marriage was at Bermondsey in October 1810, and later he >> marries the >> same spinster with the same name in Southwark in June 1811. I have >> copies of >> the relevant entries, so I'm not relying on IGI data, although it >> happens to >> be correct. >> Appreciate any help, >> Regards, >> Geoff >> South Wales. >> >> >> > > >

Hi Steve, both of these were Church weddings, initially I had thought the 2nd might be a mis-allocated baptism, but it seems not to be. Geoff South Wales -----Original Message----- From: Steve Chapman [mailto:schap@seleston.co.uk] Sent: 07 April 2006 12:28 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SoG] Re: Duplicate marriages? I have two cases where there are duplicate marriages. In both, the first was in a register office, and the second in church. One of these was my mother-in-law and my wife's birthday is slightly less premature in relation to the first marriage! The second marriage, a month later in church, still records the couple as being spinster & bachelor ! I am told by my brother-in-law that on informing the registrar about his mother's death, & mentioning the two marriages that eyebrows were "raised". It seems that once the family found out then "proper thing" had to be done. Steve Chapman Winterborne Zelston, Dorset. www.seleston.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Beach" <geoff@beachfamily.plus.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:34 PM Subject: Duplicate marriages? > Listers, > Can anyone shed a ray of light to the issue I have with my ancestor > Thomas, > his 3rd marriage was at Bermondsey in October 1810, and later he marries > the > same spinster with the same name in Southwark in June 1811. I have copies > of > the relevant entries, so I'm not relying on IGI data, although it happens > to > be correct. > Appreciate any help, > Regards, > Geoff > South Wales. > > ______________________________

I have two cases where there are duplicate marriages. In both, the first was in a register office, and the second in church. One of these was my mother-in-law and my wife's birthday is slightly less premature in relation to the first marriage! The second marriage, a month later in church, still records the couple as being spinster & bachelor ! I am told by my brother-in-law that on informing the registrar about his mother's death, & mentioning the two marriages that eyebrows were "raised". It seems that once the family found out then "proper thing" had to be done. Steve Chapman Winterborne Zelston, Dorset. www.seleston.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Beach" <geoff@beachfamily.plus.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:34 PM Subject: Duplicate marriages? > Listers, > Can anyone shed a ray of light to the issue I have with my ancestor > Thomas, > his 3rd marriage was at Bermondsey in October 1810, and later he marries > the > same spinster with the same name in Southwark in June 1811. I have copies > of > the relevant entries, so I'm not relying on IGI data, although it happens > to > be correct. > Appreciate any help, > Regards, > Geoff > South Wales. > > ______________________________

Oh dear Chris, I'll have to order in the films again and have a look. Didn't think of that - how stupid of me! Will leave it for another time. Kay ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Watts" <ml@ctwatts.plus.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] Duplicate marriages? > Kay > The telling point, in your case at least, would be whether the signatures > were real or made by the copier. > Chris > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kay DONALD CLARK" <grannykay@tiscali.co.uk> > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:02 AM > Subject: Re: [SoG] Duplicate marriages? > > > | Dear Geoff > | > | I have had a very similar experience but in Scotland which may make this > | reply superfluous! > | > | My couple were married on exactly the same day in two different places. > In > | the end I have decided that they were married in the local church and > then > | the register entries were sent in to the main church and entered again. > | There were several miles between the two. I have consulted others on > this > | and nobody has a better explanation. Some of the other marriages around > the > | same time were in both registers and some were not so I couldn't account > for > | that. These were not Banns but the bride and groom could have come from > | each of the churches. I have not yet found their births. We are > talking > | 1792 here. > | > | Is it possible that Bermondsey had to report to Southwark being the > "senior" > | church? > | > | Kay > | ----- Original Message ----- > | From: "Geoff Beach" <geoff@beachfamily.plus.com> > | To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > | Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:34 PM > | Subject: [SoG] Duplicate marriages? > | > | > | > Listers, > | > Can anyone shed a ray of light to the issue I have with my ancestor > | > Thomas, > | > his 3rd marriage was at Bermondsey in October 1810, and later he > marries > | > the > | > same spinster with the same name in Southwark in June 1811. I have > copies > | > of > | > the relevant entries, so I'm not relying on IGI data, although it > happens > | > to > | > be correct. > | > Appreciate any help, > | > Regards, > | > Geoff > | > South Wales. > | > > | > > | > > | > | -- > | This email has been verified as Virus free > | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net > >

Kay The telling point, in your case at least, would be whether the signatures were real or made by the copier. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kay DONALD CLARK" <grannykay@tiscali.co.uk> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] Duplicate marriages? | Dear Geoff | | I have had a very similar experience but in Scotland which may make this | reply superfluous! | | My couple were married on exactly the same day in two different places. In | the end I have decided that they were married in the local church and then | the register entries were sent in to the main church and entered again. | There were several miles between the two. I have consulted others on this | and nobody has a better explanation. Some of the other marriages around the | same time were in both registers and some were not so I couldn't account for | that. These were not Banns but the bride and groom could have come from | each of the churches. I have not yet found their births. We are talking | 1792 here. | | Is it possible that Bermondsey had to report to Southwark being the "senior" | church? | | Kay | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Geoff Beach" <geoff@beachfamily.plus.com> | To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> | Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:34 PM | Subject: [SoG] Duplicate marriages? | | | > Listers, | > Can anyone shed a ray of light to the issue I have with my ancestor | > Thomas, | > his 3rd marriage was at Bermondsey in October 1810, and later he marries | > the | > same spinster with the same name in Southwark in June 1811. I have copies | > of | > the relevant entries, so I'm not relying on IGI data, although it happens | > to | > be correct. | > Appreciate any help, | > Regards, | > Geoff | > South Wales. | > | > | > | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

Dear List I have posted this query before but have not got any further forward. Could someone tell me where I ought to look to find a list of men who were appointed magistrates around 1800 in London. I am sure that records must have been made at the time although I am prepared for the fact that they may not still exist. I am trying to pinpoint my Thomas CLARK (yes I know very unusual name!). Kay

Dear Geoff I have had a very similar experience but in Scotland which may make this reply superfluous! My couple were married on exactly the same day in two different places. In the end I have decided that they were married in the local church and then the register entries were sent in to the main church and entered again. There were several miles between the two. I have consulted others on this and nobody has a better explanation. Some of the other marriages around the same time were in both registers and some were not so I couldn't account for that. These were not Banns but the bride and groom could have come from each of the churches. I have not yet found their births. We are talking 1792 here. Is it possible that Bermondsey had to report to Southwark being the "senior" church? Kay ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Beach" <geoff@beachfamily.plus.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:34 PM Subject: [SoG] Duplicate marriages? > Listers, > Can anyone shed a ray of light to the issue I have with my ancestor > Thomas, > his 3rd marriage was at Bermondsey in October 1810, and later he marries > the > same spinster with the same name in Southwark in June 1811. I have copies > of > the relevant entries, so I'm not relying on IGI data, although it happens > to > be correct. > Appreciate any help, > Regards, > Geoff > South Wales. > > >

Listers, Can anyone shed a ray of light to the issue I have with my ancestor Thomas, his 3rd marriage was at Bermondsey in October 1810, and later he marries the same spinster with the same name in Southwark in June 1811. I have copies of the relevant entries, so I'm not relying on IGI data, although it happens to be correct. Appreciate any help, Regards, Geoff South Wales.

Colin, Many thanks for that info. You did, in fact, pick up on Walter PETCH's first marriage although I feel sure that the source info fo the submission is the same. I have been in touch with Paul Lareau, who was most helpful, but could not recall the source of his info. I am awaiting a reply from Ross Archer. Just shows the importance of giving sources. many thanks Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "COLIN CHAMBERLAIN" <colin.chamberlain3@btinternet.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com>; <ml@ctwatts.plus.com> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:02 AM Subject: PETCH = COFFIN, Pictcairn, 1905. | Chris, | | The details that you wanted. | | Information on Walter Henry Oliver KETCH and Elizabeth Maud YOUNG's came from the book "HMS Bounty Descendants" Oct 1991 Paul Lareau. | | The submitter was ARCHER, Ross A. 377014-0829100184113. PO Box 79-169 Royal Heights Auckland 1203, +649-832-4456, ross.archer@clear.net.nz, Date 30 Aug 2000. | | The CD states that the Marriage took place on Pitcairn Island but there is no date mentioned. | | Regards Colin Chamberlain. | | SOG-UK-D-request@rootsweb.com wrote: | Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 17:28:40 +0100 | From: "Chris Watts" <ml@ctwatts.plus.com> | To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com | Subject: PETCH = COFFIN, Pictcairn, 1905. | | Does anybody have access to Pedigree Resource File CD No.19? | I am interested in details given there about the marriage of Walter Henry | PETCH to Esther Godfrey COFFIN on Pitcairn Island. | I have found the entry from familysearch.org but no date or source is given. | What is said, if anything, on the CD? Her Pin is 378516; his is 378412. I | am trying to contact the submitter. | | There are a number of databases on the web that look as if they are derived | from this submission and they give a marriage date of 24 May 1905, on the | ship County of Dumfries, off Pitcairn. | | I have checked out the original official logbook of that ship and they | record that the marriage took place at 1:30pm on 23 April 1905. It is also | noted that the groom intends to register the marriage with the High | Commissioner's Court when the papers arrive in Pitcairn. So the later date | may refer to this. The archives of the Western Pacific High Commission are | with the University of Auckland and the librarian there is checking out this | angle for me. | | I am interested in this marriage as an example for a paper that I am giving | at the AAFHO Congree in Darwin at the very start of June. | | TIA | Chris Watts | | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net |

Chris, The details that you wanted. Information on Walter Henry Oliver KETCH and Elizabeth Maud YOUNG's came from the book "HMS Bounty Descendants" Oct 1991 Paul Lareau. The submitter was ARCHER, Ross A. 377014-0829100184113. PO Box 79-169 Royal Heights Auckland 1203, +649-832-4456, ross.archer@clear.net.nz, Date 30 Aug 2000. The CD states that the Marriage took place on Pitcairn Island but there is no date mentioned. Regards Colin Chamberlain. SOG-UK-D-request@rootsweb.com wrote: Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 17:28:40 +0100 From: "Chris Watts" <ml@ctwatts.plus.com> To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: PETCH = COFFIN, Pictcairn, 1905. Does anybody have access to Pedigree Resource File CD No.19? I am interested in details given there about the marriage of Walter Henry PETCH to Esther Godfrey COFFIN on Pitcairn Island. I have found the entry from familysearch.org but no date or source is given. What is said, if anything, on the CD? Her Pin is 378516; his is 378412. I am trying to contact the submitter. There are a number of databases on the web that look as if they are derived from this submission and they give a marriage date of 24 May 1905, on the ship County of Dumfries, off Pitcairn. I have checked out the original official logbook of that ship and they record that the marriage took place at 1:30pm on 23 April 1905. It is also noted that the groom intends to register the marriage with the High Commissioner's Court when the papers arrive in Pitcairn. So the later date may refer to this. The archives of the Western Pacific High Commission are with the University of Auckland and the librarian there is checking out this angle for me. I am interested in this marriage as an example for a paper that I am giving at the AAFHO Congree in Darwin at the very start of June. TIA Chris Watts

Does anybody have access to Pedigree Resource File CD No.19? I am interested in details given there about the marriage of Walter Henry PETCH to Esther Godfrey COFFIN on Pitcairn Island. I have found the entry from familysearch.org but no date or source is given. What is said, if anything, on the CD? Her Pin is 378516; his is 378412. I am trying to contact the submitter. There are a number of databases on the web that look as if they are derived from this submission and they give a marriage date of 24 May 1905, on the ship County of Dumfries, off Pitcairn. I have checked out the original official logbook of that ship and they record that the marriage took place at 1:30pm on 23 April 1905. It is also noted that the groom intends to register the marriage with the High Commissioner's Court when the papers arrive in Pitcairn. So the later date may refer to this. The archives of the Western Pacific High Commission are with the University of Auckland and the librarian there is checking out this angle for me. I am interested in this marriage as an example for a paper that I am giving at the AAFHO Congree in Darwin at the very start of June. TIA Chris Watts

Following Lawrence Greenall's lead, my own library (Lewisham) pointed me to their 'Online Services' page (http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/LeisureAndCulture/Libraries/LibraryFacilities/onlineservices.htm) which lists all those they give access to. This may be a guide to what's generally available. Apart from the Oxford DNB, probably the best resource for family historians, available through this route, is The Times Digital Archive 1785-1985, but there's lots of other stuff, including the OED, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Grove Music. Ben SOG-UK-D-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > "Walt O'Dowd" <walt.odowd@virgin.net> > Date: > Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:19:54 +0100 > > Does anyone know of other similarly available resources useful to > genealogists? > > Walt O'Dowd > Rushmere St Andrew, Suffolk -- Benjamin S. Beck benjaminbeck@ukonline.co.uk http://web.ukonline.co.uk/benjaminbeck

You may find this helpful ~ www.gendocs.demon.co.uk/census.html which also shows what each census recorded. Edna - Ottawa

Actually it's the 1841. Edna - Ottawa ----- Original Message ----- From: <DShep15362@aol.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 10:00 AM Subject: [SoG] Re: SOG-UK-D Digest V06 #45 Don't know if you all know, but Ancestry are due to publish the 1840 census shortly. Dave

Don't know if you all know, but Ancestry are due to publish the 1840 census shortly. Dave

Hi, A couple of days ago I sent a "thank you" to the list, but unfortunately sent it to the SOG by mistake! So here it is again: "My thanks to Peter and Chris for answering my question. This now explains why I was able to gain access to the Yorks wills and also the census indexes last summer, but not this week! Rosemary" ----- Original Message ----- From: SOG-UK-D-request@rootsweb.com To: SOG-UK-D@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:00 PM Subject: SOG-UK-D Digest V06 #44

Brief thoughts. 1. Pity that British Origins have resolved the access issue, 1841 census was nearly my sole reason for access to it. 2. I agree with the general bemusement over the questionnaire; since the request is to return it "by fax or email" it does seem odd that it was printed as a double sided form. 3. All hail to Lawrence Greenall for pointing out that many of us can access ODNB online without waiting for free one week windows! Possibly libraries do not publicise this too much for fear of abuse? I also found that the Oxford Reference Online is available on the same terms: http://www.oxfordreference.com/pub/views/home.html Does anyone know of other similarly available resources useful to genealogists? Walt O'Dowd Rushmere St Andrew, Suffolk

It would have been helpful for overseas members. Tony Currently in New Zealand At 07:41 p.m. 29/03/2006, Christopher Richards wrote: >Yes I was surprised by that also - there was the option to return the >questionnaire by email so it went as two jpgs. I hope it is legible. > >Christopher Richards > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Randell" <Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk> >To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 10:15 PM >Subject: [SoG] The SoG Questionnaire > > >>Hi: >> >>I've just dutifully completed the questionnaire that arrived with the >>last issue of Gen Mag. >> >>There was no explicit place for general comments, but I nevertheless >>added some - the final one being the (I'm afraid largely rhetorical) >>question: Why weren't any on-line means provided for answering the >>questionnaire. >> >>Cheers >> >>Brian Randell >> >> >>-- >>School of Computing Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, >>NE1 7RU, UK >>EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 >>FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/ >> >> > >