#1
|
|||
|
|||
Never seen that before.
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 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Was the bride under-age perhaps, so that they had to get remarried when she was older ?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Jay |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
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!
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
No idea, but I wonder why they didn't just go to the Registry Office?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
That's a good point Mary! I've no idea.
OC |
|
|