PDA

View Full Version : Any thoughts?


Nell
06-03-11, 18:44
Why would several siblings, living in Saffron Hill/Clerkenwell/Holborn area of London cross the river to marry at St John's Waterloo when their spouses weren't from that area either?

Olde Crone
06-03-11, 18:51
Prettier church?

They really liked the Vicar/hated the Vicar at their own church.

OC

Uncle John
06-03-11, 20:57
Fancied a ride on the train across Blackfriars Bridge?

Nell
06-03-11, 20:58
Possibly, but I would have thought there would be an alternative church nearer.

tenterfieldjulie
06-03-11, 21:04
Nell is it possible that there were earlier family marriages there?

Asa
07-03-11, 05:32
I've been asking the same question, Nell - a bride from one of my Saffron Hill families married there in 1860 - I only found the marriage last week. When I was looking into the groom's family, he had a sister who married there in 1851 and they were all baptised and raised in St Andrew Holborn. I can't see any connection south of the river with either couple. Odd.

I was wondering if it was connected to religion and the vicar was more suited to them or more accomodating or something but a lot of my Irish ones from there married at St James Shoreditch.

Merry
07-03-11, 05:50
Perhaps some C of E vicars were more accepting of Irish Catholics than others?

ElizabethHerts
07-03-11, 06:29
Nell, this sort of thing is a real puzzle and I have no answers. I have a similar scenario too.

OH's 3xgt grandfather came from Huntingdon. His bride came from Godmanchester. They raised their family in Huntingdon. However I discovered their ellusive marriage when Ancestry put on London marriages - they married at St Alphage's, Greenwich.

The entry says
"William Lamb a widower & Mary Mallatratt a Spinster both of this Parish were married in this Church by Banns this 15th day of April 1784 by me E. Birkett Curate This marriage was solemnised between us William Lamb Mary Mallatratt in the presence of Richard Jeynes?
Phebe Mallatratt"

Both of this parish must have been for a very short time because William Lamb had been living with his first wife and child in Huntingdon until well into 1781 at least.

Perhaps he was working there, but I have no proof of that. There were no family in Greenwich.

Mary's sister Phebe was a witness, but she didn't live there - she lived most of her adult life in York!

Asa
07-03-11, 06:55
It surprises me more when it's a couple from a poor background - well off families were generally more mobile (in my experience) and I suppose more likely to marry in fashionable churches or in parishes where they had property? But I always expect couples from slum backgrounds to marry locally/ conveniently somehow.

tenterfieldjulie
07-03-11, 10:12
My ancestors, who were children of ag labs, married in London, (St. Sepulchre) although they had their addresses as Chesham Bois in Bucks. The only reason I can obviously see, is that they said they were full age and they were minors.

Olde Crone
07-03-11, 10:17
I know of several instances currently, where people do not attend their most obviously near church. In all cases it is because they have had some disagreement with the incumbent, usually over a matter of dogma, but in at least one (rather shameful case) it is because the incumbent is a female.

OC

Nell
07-03-11, 20:56
Thanks for all your comments, Asa its interesting you've had the same thing.

I can only assume St John's Waterloo, where they married, was more congenial than the nearer churches. Perhaps it was more "high church" and nearer RC worship - though of course I don't even know that the McCarthy's were RC!

Callaghan McCarthy's children were married like this:

Dennis (later James Carter) married at Trinity Church, Holborn 1848
Elizabeth married St John Waterloo 1856
Mary Ann married St John Waterloo 1860
Julia married St Mary Haggerston 1866
John married St John Waterloo 1861 [in this case, the bride was living in Waterloo Road]

Phoenix
08-03-11, 16:07
Something else to bear in mind is that we only see snapshots of addresses: when people marry, when their children are baptised (not born), when they are buried and in 1841 onwards, on censuses.

I think of the Thames as a barrier, but of course it was a highway. The most mobile population are the young, pre-marriage. Those who weren't apprenticed to a craft were doubtless in and out of work wherever they could get it and probably had a dozen or more addresses in a year.

I have researched some families who bob back and forth across the Thames at a giddying rate.