Marriage Entry/Banns Bruce and Merryman

[Freesia]

Hi Folks

Can anyone please confirm my findings please, or give another answer

On Ancestry I found the Banns of marriages entry for James Bruce and Maria Merryman on October 2nd 9th & 26th October 1825 at St Dunstan and All Saints – Stepheny, Image Number 150, the couple named above have a marriage date of 22nd October, with the same Banns dates as James and Maria, there is no date beside James and Maria and no ditto marks either, do you think this means that both couples married on the same day, looking at lots of entries on various pages the same thing has happened I can’t imagine all the couples without a marriage date never married for one reason or another as there are so many.

My conclusion is that James and Maria also married on the 22 October 1825, I can find no trace of the marriage entry for them to confirm the date, only the Banns entry.

On the birth certificate of their Son who was born after Sep 1/4 1837 both their names are entered as parents. ( I know this is no proof that that they were married).

Any other suggestions would be most welcome

Many thanks

 

[Bryman]

Hi Freesia,

I am no expert but have looked at the records that you mention and I think they did not marry.
Banns were published for the 3 consecutive weeks 2/9/16 October 1825 in Stepney but I cannot find a record of the marriage at FindMyPast.
However, the previous couple in the list of Banns, George and Ann, are recorded at FMP as being married on 22 Oct 1825 at St Dunstan.

Might it be that some/many people thought that they were automatically married after Banns had been published 3 times without any objections? Hence they did not need to turn up for an additional ceremony?

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Most of the "BMD" records we view pre statutory period are church records so they are recording what happened in the church ie: baptism, reading of Banns etc. Since the vast majority of marriages didn't take place in a church until the late 19th and into the 20th century then the church wouldn't necessarily have recorded the marriage date. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Note it is also unlikely that they would have married on the 22nd as this would have been 4 days BEFORE the third banns were read on 26th October.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Banns were published for the 3 consecutive weeks 2/9/16 October 1825 in Stepney

Note it is also unlikely that they would have married on the 22nd as this would have been 4 days BEFORE the third banns were read on 26th October.

The Banns were (as Bryman shows) read for the 3 consecutive weeks, 2nd/9th & 16th October 1825 (not the 26th) at St Dunstans (Church), Stepney, and so a marriage post the 16th, such as that for George & Ann on the 22nd October would be the norm, and should have been no different -certainly by a week or so - for James Maria. I also have been unable to find a marriage using Ancestry & FMP plus Family Search and so sadly cannot contribute further.

I did note however a Public Member Tree (Skeet Family Tree) -apologies if your own - showing both James & Maria and a son Alfred Daniel Bruce (1848) but they too have no record of a marriage.

 

[Pauline]

Since the vast majority of marriages didn't take place in a church until the late 19th and into the 20th century then the church wouldn't necessarily have recorded the marriage date.

This wasn't the case in England. Before the start of General Registration in 1837, and after Hardwick's marriage act came into force in 1754, all marriages except those for Quakers & Jews had to take place in the Church of England.

 

[Tim]

Alexander has made the same point I was going to mention. Assuming dates have all been transcribed correctly, then the marriage before the final Banns is unlikely.

However I think Freesia has made a typo, dates are 2/9/16, which are all a Sunday, the 22nd being a Saturday and therefore occurring after the last Banns.

Looking at the scans, there are no marriages between the dates of 26th and 30th of October. Looking at the volume of marriages before and after these dates this does appear to be abnormal but could be legitimate.

I've looked at the scans for Oct, Nov and Dec and can't see them entered for these months.

 

[Pauline]

I did note however a Public Member Tree (Skeet Family Tree) -apologies if your own - showing both James & Maria and a son Alfred Daniel Bruce (1848) but they too have no record of a marriage.

Baptisms of 3 possible children of James & Maria are shown at Ancestry - Maria Elizabeth in 1826, Ellen in 1829 & James in 1830, the first in Bethnal Green and the latter two in Spitalfields.

So maybe James & Maria did marry somewhere soon after the banns were read, but either the entry was never recorded or it is in a register not online, or they thought calling the banns was all that was needed.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

This wasn't the case in England. Before the start of General Registration in 1837, and after Hardwick's marriage act came into force in 1754, all marriages except those for Quakers & Jews had to take place in the Church of England.

Thank you Pauline. Interesting I wasn't aware of that and fell into the extremely common trap people fall into. ie: that of assuming their own experience must be how things are for everyone.

 

[AdrienneQ]

I was wondering if they got married somewhere else but it says "both of this parish" so probable not .

 

[Freesia]

Many thanks for your interesting comments, apologies for the typo the third date should have read 16th October, I have searched in all the places everyone else has, so it is a consolation that I hadn't missed something obvious, I don't think I will ever find the answer to this puzzle, so this brick wall will stay in place.

Thanks again

 

[Pauline]

I don't think I will ever find the answer to this puzzle, so this brick wall will stay in place.

It's true that you may never discover if this couple formally married, and if they did, exactly where and when. However, I'm not sure I would consider this a brick wall - you have the full names, as well as knowing when and where the banns were called. In 1825 the only additional information you could expect from the actual marriage entry would be the names of the witnesses, and whilst they could be family members and provide useful clues, they could equally well be unconnected friends or even strangers.

 

[SuzanneD]

I have a couple in my family, also from the East End of London, who went through the reading of the banns 3 times but didn't follow through with the wedding. They were actually married a year later, and in a different parish to where the banns were originally read (they had to go through the banns process again second time around). Have you checked the marriage records for the parish where the eldest of the supposed children was baptised? Bethnal Green and Stepney are not far apart.