Never seen that before.

[Olde Crone]

Roaming through marriage rgisters on LAN-OPC, I came across a couple married on 16 October 1816 in the RC church. A marginal note says "legally married 19 October" and that marriage is recorded in the parish church.

I did know that often there were two marriages but I have never seen them cross referenced like this before.

OC

[marquette]

Was the bride under-age perhaps, so that they had to get remarried when she was older ?

[Olde Crone]

No, it isn't that, it is because the RC marriage was not a legal marriage at that time. It would have been a nuptial mass.

OC

[marquette]

I don't have any RCs (only maybe some Irish) so I forget that RC marriages weren't legal. I have lots of dissenters who would have been in the same boat though.

[Janet in Yorkshire]

No, it isn't that, it is because the RC marriage was not a legal marriage at that time. It would have been a nuptial mass.

OC

I think that still stands. I've been to two RC weddings: the registrar was in attendance at the first (in the vestry with the door open so that she could hear the necessary responses) and then many years later to the marriage service for the daughter of the above couple. As the younger pair had already had a civil and legally recognised wedding overseas, the church service was merely an internal (but lengthy) RC affair and there was no registrar in attendance.

Jay

[Phoenix]

Of course, while an RC or non-conformist register might note what they would have regarded as a civil marriage, the Anglican church would never have returned the compliment!

[Merry]

I think that still stands. I've been to two RC weddings: the registrar was in attendance at the first (in the vestry with the door open so that she could hear the necessary responses) and then many years later to the marriage service for the daughter of the above couple. As the younger pair had already had a civil and legally recognised wedding overseas, the church service was merely an internal (but lengthy) RC affair and there was no registrar in attendance.

Jay

All C of E clergyman are automatically entitled to act as the legal Registrar, as well as the church’s official witness. However, Roman Catholic priests are not always licensed to perform marriage ceremonies, so a registrar may need to be present. So, presumably the first marriage you attended was performed by an unlicensed priest.

[Olde Crone]

Oh, that's reminded me - I once went to a vestry wedding! the couple were RC and had had an RC ceremony but to legalise it another ceremony had to be performed in the parish church (C of E), not at the altar but in the vestry to satisfy their religious need not to be involved with the C of E!

I cannot now remember if the wording of the ceremony was any different to the "full English", lol - anyone know?

OC

[Mary from Italy]

No idea, but I wonder why they didn't just go to the Registry Office?

[Olde Crone]

That's a good point Mary! I've no idea.

OC

[maryphil]

I had a nuptial mass at my wedding and there was a registrar present this was 1971.
Now I think there is someone in the church that is trained as a registrar, I might have this wrong.
My brother was married in an RC church with his wife's vicar on the altar with the priest

[HarrysMum]

All Catholic priests in Australia are able to conduct legal marriages. The church has some rules of its own regarding marrying those who are not Catholic, but that has nothing to do with legal requirements. Most priests I know will marry just about anybody who can legally marry.

Not all are married in churches. Some have two celebrants, one from each denomination, if the couple wish it.

[tenterfieldjulie]

I've always thought the French idea (I've been told) of first marrying in a RO (the legal requirement,) then in a church (sacramental) a practical idea. I could be quite wrong of course lol