Banns read after marriage ??

[Gert in Oz]

Banns of marriage between Richard Doggett and Hannah Curd Both of this parish were published, on the 31st Oct, 7 Nov and 14th Nov.

Married 29 Oct 1802 Sarratt Hertfordshire

I always thought banns HAD to be read before marriage?

Interested in your opinion, thanks.

[tenterfieldjulie]

I thought they had to be too Sylvia.

[ElizabethHerts]

Sylvia, I've just looked at the parish register and what you say is correct!

Do you think the vicar didn't follow the correct procedure and had to read them afterwards?

[Gert in Oz]

Not sure what happened Elizabeth, all the other marriages shown have the banns before marriage.

I`m looking at FMP parish records

[kiterunner]

Maybe he put the wrong date for the marriage?

[ElizabethHerts]

http://www.findmypast.co.uk/records/parish-records/details/M/74034148?e=M&iSnV=true&sn=DOGGETT&snNXF=true&cy=HRT&o=50&rC=234&locale=en

Perhaps he put October instead of November?

[Phoenix]

I bet Elizabeth's explanation is the correct one. I cannot imagine any vicar humiliating himself by reading the banns to the sniggers of the congregation.

[Durham Lady]

Yes Banns have to be read before the marriage, part of it reads "if any of you know cause or impediment why these two should not be joined together in Holy Matrimony ye are to declare it!

[Gert in Oz]

http://www.findmypast.co.uk/records/parish-records/details/M/74034148?e=M&iSnV=true&sn=DOGGETT&snNXF=true&cy=HRT&o=50&rC=234&locale=en

Perhaps he put October instead of November?



Thats a possibility Elizabeth, as the next marriage has the banns read in December and marry January of 1803.

[Gert in Oz]

Not sure what it is with my Curds and the church in Sarratt.

Hannah`s neice Charlotte was to be married to William Griffin 21 Jan 1828 after banns, but William forgot to get a certificate from his church in Rickmansworth, so the vicar crossed the entry out and put a note.

They did get married on the 28 Jan 1828 in Rickmansworth, but had thier children baptised all 7 on the same day 20 May 1856 in Abbotts Langley.

[Kit]

I always wonder why they decided to do the mass baptism at that time.

[tenterfieldjulie]

Possibilites are:
The minister visited them at home and encouraged them to do so.
Sometimes it could be that a family member dies and they reconnect with the church.
Other times it could be that one of the children has a very serious illness.
Other times it could be that they are attending Baptist chapel that doesn't believe in childhood baptism.
In rural areas in the early days in Aus it was you waited until the minister/priest made a visit and then tried to round up the kids lol.
Maybe in Sylvia's case the couple were humiliated and wouldn't go near the church until there was a change of vicars.

[Olde Crone]

And yet another reason could have been as the result of a religious revival meeting in the area.

OC

[Durham Lady]

Possibilites are:
The minister visited them at home and encouraged them to do so.
Sometimes it could be that a family member dies and they reconnect with the church.
Other times it could be that one of the children has a very serious illness.
Other times it could be that they are attending Baptist chapel that doesn't believe in childhood baptism.
In rural areas in the early days in Aus it was you waited until the minister/priest made a visit and then tried to round up the kids lol.
Maybe in Sylvia's case the couple were humiliated and wouldn't go near the church until there was a change of vicars.

Yes always a possibility or like my parents, by passed the Church right by our home because they didn't like the way the Rector spoke down to folk and took me to the next parish to be baptised.
The Rector apparently saw the party going to the Christening and asked my sister if everyone was taking the new baby for a walk and she promptly told him "no we are taking the baby to be christened" :o

[Gert in Oz]

They were living in Abbotts Langley by 1856, but the childrens ages would have been 26, 23, 20, 18, 16, 15 and 11.