I too have a situation with two weddings for the same couple one in January 1876 and the second in June 1877. I also have a similar military connection with the groom being a gunner in the artillery and possibly on leave from his Hampshire base when he married first.The first marriage was the family affair in the bride's home district and the second a register office ceremony near the groom's barracks. (So not the case that the first marriage was anything like an impulsive or secret thing that was "normalised" in front of the family later. And there's no evidence that they "had" to get married in the first instance. My solution to the puzzle is that it may have been the case that men in the army couldn't marry without permission and that in order to bring his wife home to live in married quarters he had to go through another ceremony to produce a marriage certificate after he had been granted formal permission. This is only a guess, and perhaps some of the military experts o! n this list can enlighten us further. If we have any marriage experts reading this, I've always been intrigued by the legality of this situation. Which is the legal marriage - the first or the second? Does the second invalidate the first one or would the second marriage (presumeably involving false declarations of bachelorhood/spinsterdom) be illegal. Did my relatives commit a crime the second time around and could they have been prosecuted? I hope that's not the case. Of course it might just be that they loved each other so much and had such a good time on the first day that they decided to do it again (- and get a second set of wedding gifts?!)

Can anyone help please with ideas as to why a couple would have undergone two marriage ceremonies 1 year and 9 months apart: Sep 1903 at Scotforth, Lancs - groom a bachelor of 29, a merchant of Lancaster; bride a spinster of 22 of Ripley, Yorks. June 1905 at Southport, Lancs - groom a bachelor of 30, a merchant of Southport; bride a spinster of 24 of Halifax, Yorks. The groom used a different surname for the second marriage although he did not formerly announce that he wanted to be known by the new surname until Feb 1906, when he put an entry in the Times 6 days after the birth of their first child (whose birth was registered in March 1906 in the old surname!) They are definitely the same couple (and family bible shows both marriages) and their ages are correct, confirmed by birth certs. It's thought that the groom may have been on leave from the army when he married, but not known if this was for the first or the second time. Thoughts welcomed. Best regards Caroline Lancaster

I forgot a backshlash for the photo.. should be of course http://www.wedmore.org.uk/photo.htm eddy in Bavaria

Bonjour to all, I just thought to myself, if the interest over my Uniform/ photo was as large as "scanners" and " qualifications for jury service" then I would be in the pink. So come on lads and lassies take pity on a poor boy stuck in germany and take a look at http:/www.wedmore.org.uk/photo.htm this is not SPAM or any other nasties!!! Yours Edw.j.Tate A.d.Sandwellen 15 93326 Abensberg Germany

Can anyone help please with ideas as to why a couple would have undergone two marriage ceremonies 1 year and 9 months apart: Sep 1903 at Scotforth, Lancs - groom a bachelor of 29, a merchant of Lancaster; bride a spinster of 22 of Ripley, Yorks. June 1905 at Southport, Lancs - groom a bachelor of 30, a merchant of Southport; bride a spinster of 24 of Halifax, Yorks. The groom used a different surname for the second marriage although he did not formerly announce that he wanted to be known by the new surname until Feb 1906, when he put an entry in the Times 6 days after the birth of their first child (whose birth was registered in March 1906 in the old surname!) They are definitely the same couple (and family bible shows both marriages) and their ages are correct, confirmed by birth certs. It's thought that the groom may have been on leave from the army when he married, but not known if this was for the first or the second time. Thoughts welcomed. Best regards Caroline Lancaster

What better place to look than the article entitled "News and Views from Salt Lake City" in the current Genealogist's Magazine? <g>. "Recent batch numbers...may not give a source film number...look up the place in the Family History Library Catalog, the film number of the church record will be listed under the place (parish), then the subject 'Church Records'. Look for Church of England records unless another denomination is listed..." Helpful? I think not. Has anyone else got any views on that particular article or the editorial decision to print it without comment? > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Jackson [mailto:fred.jackson2@ntlworld.com] > Sent: 11 June 2005 11:46 > To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SoG] IGI Batch Numbers <snipped to save space> > I tried the Hugh Wallis website on IGI Batch Numbers, only to discover > that > he specifically excludes batches beginning with the letter I. A visit to > our local LDS family history centre to see if they could help drew a > blank. > We would be most gratefull if SKS could point us in the right direction to > solve the problem. > > Fred Jackson

According to the current version of the IGI, my wife's 4 x Gt Grandparents, William Culff and Mary Monk, were married in Westminster on 27 Nov 1747. Unfortunately the entry does not give the name of the church. We took what seemed to be the obvious step to confirm the entry by visiting the Westminster Archives, where we were told that the entry was virtually meaningless since there were dozens of churches within Westminster. We searched their holdings for every church which was operational in 1747 for marriages and failed to find the entry. Later, I checked online at familysearch.org to see whether this was one of those 'member submitted' entries which I sometimes think have been inserted on the basis of 'I think it must have been so therefore it was' - a practice which I nickname 'cogito ergo erat'. However, I found that the entry appeared to be in a very large batch extraction, well in excess of 5000 marriage entries, all of them being between the years 1746 and 1751 - say something like 1000 weddings per year. The IGI batch number was: I 012285 I tried the Hugh Wallis website on IGI Batch Numbers, only to discover that he specifically excludes batches beginning with the letter I. A visit to our local LDS family history centre to see if they could help drew a blank. We would be most gratefull if SKS could point us in the right direction to solve the problem. Fred Jackson

I know I was a very young woman when I first sat on Jury Service, either 18 or 19, a very frightening and terrifying experience at that age; the worst thing was the lecture we had on what would happen if you were late for jury service; more frightening than actually being there, and possibly passing some sentence on some soul. I think I used to set off at about 6 a.m., and was horrified at the thought of being called to 'sit'. Thank heavens, subsequent late life pregnancies enabled me to 'not go' for jury service; I thought you were only ever called once; I've been called three times; my husband was quite willing to go in my place but never had the 'call'. Why not? Once was enough for me. Far too young in the first place. I really think 'they' should balance some age and experience in who they call for Jury Service, not teenagers who are terrified by the establishment, let alone by the ones they were possibly going to pass some judgement on, with neither experience nor skills to do so. Kind regards, Yvonne

Do you have a reference? This is not the role of the jury as I understand it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Powys-Lybbe [mailto:tim@powys.org] > Sent: 10 June 2005 08:53 > To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SoG] qualification for jury service? > While I have every sympathy with the last sentence, it also implies > that it is wrong to tell miscreants that they are doing wrong. So the > miscreants do not learn. So they continue with their present bad > behaviour, to the harm of others. Is this not a description of what is > reported all too often in the papers

I am not willing to discuss this. I will only say that from my perspective you are inferring - not me implying. Ros ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] qualification for jury service? > In message of 9 Jun, "Rosemary Jarvis" <ros.jarvis@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > > It was the Inland Revenue and we were instructed to make the claim. It was > > still in force in 1971 when I started work in this department and continued > > for a while but I can't remember how long. We had to put a tick some box or > > other on some form - I think it may have been the electoral roll. I was > > somewhat disappointed that I would never be called which is why I remember > > it. That was in my youth! Mature reflection leads me to being relieved I > > was never called upon to sit in judgement on another. > > While I have every sympathy with the last sentence, it also implies > that it is wrong to tell miscreants that they are doing wrong. So the > miscreants do not learn. So they continue with their present bad > behaviour, to the harm of others. Is this not a description of what is > reported all too often in the papers? > > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org > For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org >

In message of 9 Jun, "Rosemary Jarvis" <ros.jarvis@ntlworld.com> wrote: > It was the Inland Revenue and we were instructed to make the claim. It was > still in force in 1971 when I started work in this department and continued > for a while but I can't remember how long. We had to put a tick some box or > other on some form - I think it may have been the electoral roll. I was > somewhat disappointed that I would never be called which is why I remember > it. That was in my youth! Mature reflection leads me to being relieved I > was never called upon to sit in judgement on another. While I have every sympathy with the last sentence, it also implies that it is wrong to tell miscreants that they are doing wrong. So the miscreants do not learn. So they continue with their present bad behaviour, to the harm of others. Is this not a description of what is reported all too often in the papers? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

It was the Inland Revenue and we were instructed to make the claim. It was still in force in 1971 when I started work in this department and continued for a while but I can't remember how long. We had to put a tick some box or other on some form - I think it may have been the electoral roll. I was somewhat disappointed that I would never be called which is why I remember it. That was in my youth! Mature reflection leads me to being relieved I was never called upon to sit in judgement on another. Ros ----- Original Message ----- From: <AlanMCraven@aol.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [SoG] qualification for jury service? > > In a message dated 09/06/2005 14:19:56 GMT Daylight Time, > jbwillerton@tiscali.co.uk writes: > > Which department was that? I worked in the Ministry of Defence and its > predecessors for 37 years and never heard of anyone claiming exemption. > I certainly did jury service, as did several colleagues. > > > > >Sorry but historically and not so long ago at least some departments of > civil servants were instructed to claim exemption. I was myself. Currently > they do not, are not entitled to and this has been the case for a few years > but go back certainly 30 years and this was the case. > > > > > > I was employed by HM Customs & Excise and was not allowed to sit on a jury. > This ruling was changed a few years ago. > > Alan >

Which department was that? I worked in the Ministry of Defence and its predecessors for 37 years and never heard of anyone claiming exemption. I certainly did jury service, as did several colleagues. >Sorry but historically and not so long ago at least some departments of civil servants were instructed to claim exemption. I was myself. Currently they do not, are not entitled to and this has been the case for a few years but go back certainly 30 years and this was the case. ___________________________________________________________ Book yourself something to look forward to in 2005. Cheap flights - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/flights/ Bargain holidays - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/holidays/

Sorry but historically and not so long ago at least some departments of civil servants were instructed to claim exemption. I was myself. Currently they do not, are not entitled to and this has been the case for a few years but go back certainly 30 years and this was the case. Ros ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Spence" <liz.tom@lineone.net> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [SoG] qualification for jury service? > Re below - it is very rare for a civil servant to claim exemption. They are > expected to attend for jury service and are granted special paid leave for > doing so. Understandably they cannot claim for loss of earnings. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rosemary Jarvis" <ros.jarvis@ntlworld.com> > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:12 AM > Subject: Re: [SoG] qualification for jury service? > > > > also some professions could claim an exemption - certainly civil servants > > could and were expected to. > > > > Ros > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jeremy Wilkes" <JeremyWilkes@compuserve.com> > > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:26 AM > > Subject: [SoG] qualification for jury service? > > > > > >> The only criterion (apart from eligibility to vote) that applied to any > >> register for which I submitted a form was that of age. If you were over > >> the age limit, you did not get a "J", and if you were below it you did. > >> Being under the age limit, I received two jury summonses while I was > >> ineligible for professional reasons. It was up to me to return the > > summons > >> saying why I was not eligible (or, as the case might be, exempt or > >> disqualified). > >> > >> However, I recall that at an earlier time there was provision for > >> identifying householders, I think by requiring their names to be placed > >> first on the form. If I remember correctly, the first-named was taken to > >> be the householder (and therefore liable under the law at that time) > > unless > >> it was made clear that there were joint householders. > >> > >> Jeremy Wilkes > >> > > > > > >

In a message dated 09/06/2005 14:19:56 GMT Daylight Time, jbwillerton@tiscali.co.uk writes: Which department was that? I worked in the Ministry of Defence and its predecessors for 37 years and never heard of anyone claiming exemption. I certainly did jury service, as did several colleagues. >Sorry but historically and not so long ago at least some departments of civil servants were instructed to claim exemption. I was myself. Currently they do not, are not entitled to and this has been the case for a few years but go back certainly 30 years and this was the case. I was employed by HM Customs & Excise and was not allowed to sit on a jury. This ruling was changed a few years ago. Alan

"Hector Davie" <hector@dplanet.ch> wrote : > The current qualifications for jury service in Britain are in the Juries > Act 1974 - there is a whole list of people who are ineligible - > imbeciles, vicars and probation officers, among others. > > Hector Davie Not that there's any connection between them, of course ! John B Leic., Eng

Re below - it is very rare for a civil servant to claim exemption. They are expected to attend for jury service and are granted special paid leave for doing so. Understandably they cannot claim for loss of earnings. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosemary Jarvis" <ros.jarvis@ntlworld.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] qualification for jury service? > also some professions could claim an exemption - certainly civil servants > could and were expected to. > > Ros > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeremy Wilkes" <JeremyWilkes@compuserve.com> > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:26 AM > Subject: [SoG] qualification for jury service? > > >> The only criterion (apart from eligibility to vote) that applied to any >> register for which I submitted a form was that of age. If you were over >> the age limit, you did not get a "J", and if you were below it you did. >> Being under the age limit, I received two jury summonses while I was >> ineligible for professional reasons. It was up to me to return the > summons >> saying why I was not eligible (or, as the case might be, exempt or >> disqualified). >> >> However, I recall that at an earlier time there was provision for >> identifying householders, I think by requiring their names to be placed >> first on the form. If I remember correctly, the first-named was taken to >> be the householder (and therefore liable under the law at that time) > unless >> it was made clear that there were joint householders. >> >> Jeremy Wilkes >> > >

also some professions could claim an exemption - certainly civil servants could and were expected to. Ros ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Wilkes" <JeremyWilkes@compuserve.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:26 AM Subject: [SoG] qualification for jury service? > The only criterion (apart from eligibility to vote) that applied to any > register for which I submitted a form was that of age. If you were over > the age limit, you did not get a "J", and if you were below it you did. > Being under the age limit, I received two jury summonses while I was > ineligible for professional reasons. It was up to me to return the summons > saying why I was not eligible (or, as the case might be, exempt or > disqualified). > > However, I recall that at an earlier time there was provision for > identifying householders, I think by requiring their names to be placed > first on the form. If I remember correctly, the first-named was taken to > be the householder (and therefore liable under the law at that time) unless > it was made clear that there were joint householders. > > Jeremy Wilkes >

The current qualifications for jury service in Britain are in the Juries Act 1974 - there is a whole list of people who are ineligible - imbeciles, vicars and probation officers, among others. Hector Davie

The only criterion (apart from eligibility to vote) that applied to any register for which I submitted a form was that of age. If you were over the age limit, you did not get a "J", and if you were below it you did. Being under the age limit, I received two jury summonses while I was ineligible for professional reasons. It was up to me to return the summons saying why I was not eligible (or, as the case might be, exempt or disqualified). However, I recall that at an earlier time there was provision for identifying householders, I think by requiring their names to be placed first on the form. If I remember correctly, the first-named was taken to be the householder (and therefore liable under the law at that time) unless it was made clear that there were joint householders. Jeremy Wilkes