Marriage c 1760 - not recorded?

[Phoenix]

William Waller marries Hannah. At least, I assume he does.

First child (baptism not found) is James c 1760. I believe William to have been born c 1737 so, any marriage should fall within the realms of Hardwick's marriage act.

This is Norfolk, so most of the registers are online. I have just looked at the banns for a dozen places, without joy. (If I have the stamina, I could go through the licences, which are totally unsorted by either date or surname)

I did note, though, that after a flurry of recordings in 1754/5 there seemed to be a gap then until about 1761.

Has anyone noticed a similar gap in recording? I also found one register where a list was made of omitted marriages - for just one family, so they were the only ones to complain.

I would be very interested in what others have found.

[kiterunner]

I have seen some where the marriages for the first few years after 1754 were just written in the general register without the full details, marital status, witnesses, etc but I don't remember seeing them omitted completely. Have you tried the AT's and BT's? I was trying to have a look but FamilySearch keeps breaking.

[Phoenix]

I'm glad I'm not the only one it keeps breaking for!

It just seems strange that some parishes have quite a few baptisms, but not enough marriages. Norfolk has always seemed one of the better counties for recording details (I found one parish where the surviving spouse was noted by each burial!) but I got the feeling that they had got bored with this fancy mularkey, especially if they had forgotten to take the register to the church on the day.

[kiterunner]

It seems they were making some changes to FamilySearch, seems to be working o.k. now, touch wood (spoke too soon - it broke again!).
AT's for Langham, just so we don't have to look at them again:
1754 Marriages - none
1755 Robert Outon Singleman to Hannah Passeval Widow May 16th 1755
Jno Pells Singleman to Lucy Massingham Singlewoman Oct 7th 1755
1758 none
1761 none

[Olde Crone]

When you think of all the things that could happen to parish records, it's a miracle any survived at all!

I remember ploughing through one lot which started off wonderfully and gradually petered out to mere scrawls on the page. Then followed two pages of closely written Latin, which I got someone to translate and it appeared the Vicar poor soul had suffered a mental decline. Either no one had noticed or maybe no one cared, but there was a gap of about ten years in the records. He had finally been removed from office. Some attempt was made to recreate what had taken place in the missing ten years but who knows how accurate that was.

Throw in a few fires, lots of damp and mould, some mice and a couple of highwaymen and it is indeed a miracle that any survived anywhere.

OC

[Phoenix]

OC, I am profoundly grateful for anything that survives. I have heard of vicars' wives using the old registers to cut up as dress patterns, greyhounds whelping in the parish chest, records being buried in WW2.

By the end of the 1700s, Norfolk records were some of the best, being audited annually, usually by the Archdeacon, but every 6th year by the bishop. When I started to look at Surrey records, it came as a grave shock to see how poorly they were kept, and all the bts pre 1800 mislaid.

I spent a large part of yesterday trawling through banns for likely parishes, with no joy. If I have the stamina, I will look at the marriage licences.

[tenterfieldjulie]

Phoenix .. Not all memories are good for Norfolk genealogy.. I had considerable joy with Mary Callow, Convict and was happily tracing her back, until Kate found that she was still in the Census in Norfolk after she had been transported !! Pesky little thing, only a bit of a girl and tiny, but apart from the court records, nary a sign of her origins .... .... Julie