* Banns

AS allows faster and more convenient creation of source records for Family Historian.
avatar
mezentia
Famous
Posts: 141
Joined: 12 Jan 2007 21:14
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Stourbridge

Banns

Post by mezentia » 13 Jun 2017 09:08

Is there any possibility of allowing the dates for the publication of banns to be included in the Marriage entry? I am coming increasinly across details of banns with more and more PRs coming online and it would be useful to be able to include these at the same time as recording the marriage.

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1450
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 13 Jun 2017 09:31

I'd record the banns as a separate event, personally.

Or you could include the details in a note to the marriage event.

User avatar
Valkrider
Megastar
Posts: 1109
Joined: 04 Jun 2012 19:03
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by Valkrider » 13 Jun 2017 09:35

I agree with Helen record them separately, occasionally Banns don't lead to marriage ;)

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16882
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by tatewise » 13 Jun 2017 10:33

That is what mezentia is requesting.
i.e. That a standard Marriage Banns Event is created by AS with a Date entered via AS.

This is in much the same way that Birth, Death, Occupation, Physical Description, Nationality, Religion, and other multiple associated facts are automatically created by AS where appropriate.

It seems a good idea, but is of course up to Nick Walker to decide.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1450
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 13 Jun 2017 11:25

Mike,

I'm not sure I understand -- a Banns record is a completely different source to a Marriage record -- but it sounds as Mezentia (and you?) are proposing a hybrid of marriage and banns (and possibly licence and settlement and all other records relating to marriage).

It's very easy to add a Banns event to a couple, and as there's rarely more information that a couple of names and some dates, I'm not sure what value AS would add -- there is already the ability to add a note to the marriage which could be used if the separate event doesn't suit (but it's Nick's call).

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16882
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by tatewise » 13 Jun 2017 13:23

Helen, you are strictly correct that the Marriage Banns Event should have a separate Marriage Banns source record.

But if more of a 'lumper' than a 'splitter' you might choose to combine the Banns & Marriage into one Source record, in the same way that many 'lump' the GRO Marriage Index and Marriage Certificate into one Source record.

Similar strategies could be employed for Marriage Licence, etc.

It is interesting that such closely coupled events as Banns and Marriage are treated as separate facts, yet some users rave over single Emigration facts with a From Place and a To Place that occur days if not weeks apart.

However, as you say, it is Nick's call.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
Valkrider
Megastar
Posts: 1109
Joined: 04 Jun 2012 19:03
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by Valkrider » 13 Jun 2017 13:46

I don't think it a good idea to add it to the marriage event. Banns are read in both the bride and grooms parish if they are different so it would have to cater for that. I am still with Helen they are separate events that happen 3 weeks before the actual marriage and of course, as I said earlier, you can have Banns without a marriage I have found a couple of instances of that in my surname study.

User avatar
LornaCraig
Megastar
Posts: 1562
Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Banns

Post by LornaCraig » 13 Jun 2017 13:53

Mike wrote:
Helen, you are strictly correct that the Marriage Banns Event should have a separate Marriage Banns source record.
I think the important point, as Helen and Colin have said, is that the two events are separate, not that they have separate sources. Sometimes there can be a single source document for both, and in that case it would be somewhat pedantic to create separate source records. I have several cases where a parish register shows the publication of banns and the next line on the same page goes on to say something like "In accordance with the above, the marriage between x and y was solemnised on...."

Similarly, for marriage licences, I have several cases of USA marriages where a single document or certificate contains both the marriage licence and the record of the marriage itself.

AS could create separate events for banns and marriage (or licence and marriage) but would need to cater for cases where there is a single source document as well as cases of separate sources.
Lorna

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16882
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by tatewise » 13 Jun 2017 14:00

No one is proposing anything other than two separate events.
The proposal has always been to use the existing standard separate Marriage Banns Family Event, but to combine the Banns & Marriage source details into one record (which Lorna confirms can happen), and cite that record from both the Marriage Banns and Marriage separate events automatically created by AS.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1450
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 13 Jun 2017 15:06

I thought (and Mezentia will correct me if I'm wrong) that the proposal was to include details of the banns event in the marriage event ("Is there any possibility of allowing the dates for the publication of banns to be included in the Marriage entry?") so one event from two sources (or even three if you've got both sets of banns from different parishes), with the facility for AS to combine the info from those sources.

One approach to doing so without any changes in AS would be to attach images for all sources (marriage record and banns record(s)) to the marriage event in AS, but of course you'd only end up with a single source record not two (which might be acceptable to a "Lumper"). The source name could reflect that it's both Banns and Marriage, The details of the Banns could be included in a Note.

I don't think it would be possible to create a marriage autotext template which catered completely for all the information, as AS doesn't have the keywords, but it might be possible to get some way towards it. One problem would be selecting the date as a range to cover the banns period and the marriage day -- I don't *think* it's possible to specify a data range in AS (as the programme expects you to be working from a single dated source, or at least with partial date (month and year, or year).

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16882
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by tatewise » 13 Jun 2017 19:13

Since this is the AS Forum, I imagined mezentia was talking about the Marriage Entry dialogue in AS (NOT Marriage Event), which like the other AS dialogues allows lots of details to be entered in one place, that creates one Source record, but multiple Events. This being the big advantage of AS, allowing one dialogue to create multiple events, without the tedious repetition otherwise needed.

That AS Marriage Entry dialogue allows marriage by Banns to be selected, and mezentia is asking if the Date of the Banns could be added to the dialogue so a separate Marriage Banns Event could be automatically created with that specific Date at the same time as AS creates the Marriage Event with its specific Date and both events to cite the one Source record.

This is very similar to the other dialogues that allow multiple Events each with different Dates to all be created citing the one Source, and have been elaborated over the years to include more and more events from the one AS entry dialogue.

People seem to be getting hung up on one combined Event when mezentia does not mention that word at all.
The marriage icon in AS has the tooltip Create marriage entries, and my Plugin refers to Marriage entries so Marriage entry is the perfect description of the AS dialogue, as opposed to the Marriage Event, which is just one of many items created by AS from the dialogue.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1450
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 13 Jun 2017 19:40

This is very similar to the other dialogues that allow multiple Events each with different Dates to all be created citing the one Source, and have been elaborated over the years to include more and more events from the one AS entry dialogue
Well, no, it isn't. You seem to understand that what's wanted is the ability to create multiple events from multiple sources, as we've already agreed that (1) the events are separate; and (2) the sources are usually separate. This might be convenient for some people, even if it's not strictly accurate (as Colin said, Banns don't always mean a marriage took place, or that the marriage took place in the parish for which you've found the banns and this approach might lead people to create a marriage fact purely from the banns source, which might not be a good idea).

I'm understanding a desire to combine multiple sources ('Lumping') and create a single event with information about the associated banns. Or are you suggesting that both the marriage source and the banns source would be associated with both the marriage fact and the banns fact? (Two sources, two events).

Anyway, I've suggested a way Mezentia can go part of the way already; at least until they clarify what suits them best. And Nick will decide if he wants the route of multiple source records for a single entry.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16882
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by tatewise » 13 Jun 2017 20:02

No, I have consistently said ONE 'lumped' Source record, and two separate Events citing that ONE Source record, just like elsewhere in AS.

Lorna confirms what I suspected, that the Banns & Marriage (and Licence & Marriage) details are sometimes recorded in ONE source document, and she says "in that case it would be somewhat pedantic to create separate source records."

I also understand that there are manual ways to record the data for the time being or in the long term.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
LornaCraig
Megastar
Posts: 1562
Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Banns

Post by LornaCraig » 13 Jun 2017 20:26

Yes, but I also said "AS could create separate events for banns and marriage (or licence and marriage) but would need to cater for cases where there is a single source document as well as cases of separate sources." If the banns and marriage (or licence and marriage) are both recorded in one source document I create one Source record, with 'banns and marriage' as part of the title. But if they are two separate documents I create two separate Source records.

I can see the attraction of using AS to create two events from a single entry dialog but it would require some ingenuity (by Nick) to offer a choice of single or multiple sources according to the nature of the document(s). Using a single lumped source in all cases is certainly a possibility but I think I would continue with my current approach - one Source record per source document.
Lorna

User avatar
mjashby
Superstar
Posts: 442
Joined: 23 Oct 2004 10:45
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Banns

Post by mjashby » 13 Jun 2017 21:04

I suspect that this whole topic is a "can of worms" where there can be no single solution that could possibly satisfy everyone; and which would probably lead to requests for a wide variety options to be available if it were implemented in Ancestral Sources, thereby complicating the whole process of design and input. In particular:

- There are some pre-1837 (England & Wales) marriage registers that used pre-printed pages which made provision for recording Banns and a subsequent Marriage in the same Parish which could certainly be used for the combined input of these separate events, but these, in my research experience, are in the minority. Where they do survive, Banns records are more generally found in a separate record books and where these survive, Archive References to the Marriage Registers and Banns Records often have separate Archive References, which to me makes them completely separate sources which are liable to be found by researchers at different times.

- The design of Ancestral Sources, to me, assumes that the user's input of Source Information comes from single documents and not from multiple documents completed at different times, possibly in different locations and possibly by different people, e.g. banns records from a parish other than that in which the marriage took place.

- What would happen where Banns Records are found some time after the input of a Marriage Record. Would that necessitate the re-input of the combined information? Or, would it raise a demand a method for amending the original input using Ancestral Sources to incorporate the additional information.

- To me, combining the input of separate Source Records for events that are required to take place prior to a marriage with Source records for the actual marriage event would be like combining a UK Death Certificate entry with a related, but completely separate, Burial/Cremation/Funeral Record. It also ignores the possibility already mentioned of where there is a surviving record of Banns having been read, but where no evidence has (yet) been found that a marriage ceremony was performed, or where it is known that there was no marriage.

However, it is, of course, relatively easy to amend the certificate/register text constructed by Ancestral Sources to show: "By Banns read on x, y and z dates at Parish A; and x, y and z dates at Parish B", if that's what a user wants. That pragmatic approach requires no change to Ancestral Sources, but is still capable of producing a combined record at the time of input; or of enabling a record of Banns to be added later to any existing Marriage Sources with the opportunity of attaching any additional source images; and with a minimum of data entry. The user also then has the widest range of options for recording any events linked to that single Source, I.e. record each separate reading, readings between X & Y dates, or not at all.

Mervyn

User avatar
gwilym'smum
Famous
Posts: 233
Joined: 01 Feb 2016 16:28
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by gwilym'smum » 14 Jun 2017 07:01

Hi, as I have said before I am not technical. When I find a Banns record I save it with it's own code, similarly for the licence and marriage. The images also have their own codes. I have a slight difficulty as has been suggested I have one document in Staffordshire Banns collection (not marriages as far as I can see on FMP) that records the banns and the marriage. I haven't yet entered the information.
Perhaps in a simplified version Nick could add 2 new tabs to the marriage entry form, one for Banns and one for Licence and then images could be linked. The images would themselves be given a source. This would indicate that there are separate sources. Just a suggestion :? Regards Ann
Researching Mayer, Parr/Parr, Simcock, Beech and all related families

User avatar
NickWalker
Megastar
Posts: 1163
Joined: 02 Jan 2004 17:39
Family Historian: V6
Location: Lancashire, UK
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by NickWalker » 14 Jun 2017 15:08

I don't think it's likely that I would build in a mechanism to allow an entry to be made that generates multiple sources. It just doesn't really fit in with the mechanisms that AS uses. I could envisage adding functionality to the marriage entry facility to allow the dates of banns to be recorded if those are recorded as part of the marriage record itself and then saving the marriage record could also generate banns facts but I'm not sure how common that is - I have a feeling I've had some parish marriage entries which have also included banns dates.

If all that you have is a record of banns then if AS was to ever support this I'd treat it as an entirely new source type and allow the couple to be selected as well as the dates and locations. Banns don't always lead to a marriage as they can be called off so there would then need to be an option to also link the source that was created to an existing marriage.
Nick Walker
Ancestral Sources Developer

http://www.ancestralsources.com

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16882
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by tatewise » 14 Jun 2017 16:35

You have summed that up very succinctly Nick.

What you 'envisage' in your 3rd sentence is I believe exactly what mezentia requested.

It appears that you have seen such combined banns & marriage records, Lorna has seen them, and presumably mezentia has seen them.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1450
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 14 Jun 2017 17:27

Mike, what Lorna actually said was:
I have several cases where a parish register shows the publication of banns and the next line on the same page goes on to say something like "In accordance with the above, the marriage between x and y was solemnised on...."
I've seen similarly the marriage date as an annotation by the incumbent, but being pedantic the marriage entry in the parish register is (in the UK) always a separate document. There is no such thing in the UK as a combined banns and marriage source -- just a marriage source plus a banns source (that may provide additional information, and may be the only evidence you find for a marriage).

That said, it's always worthwhile looking for a banns record -- I have one notable example that names both parties, both fathers and confirms the exact places where the bride and groom had been living since their birth (probably because neither of them had set foot in a church before, being Baptists). It broke down a brick wall because it confirmed which of the several John James in the parish was the father of my ancestor, something no other source had revealed until then, even the marriage entry. (I found later corroboration for the parentage in the diary of a notable Welsh Mormon who was related to the couple.)

I'd never stand in the way of anyone recording the evidence for the assertions in their family tree in any way that is best for them; but I do think we ought to be precise about the nature of the sources we're dealing with.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16882
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by tatewise » 14 Jun 2017 19:01

What Lorna also actually said was:
Sometimes there can be a single source document for both, and in that case it would be somewhat pedantic to create separate source records.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1450
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 14 Jun 2017 19:05

Mike, yes, but it's a banns source not a marriage source, even if you use it to substantiate a marriage event. So I'm not saying create two sources if you only have one source, I'm saying recognise the source for what it is.

User avatar
NickWalker
Megastar
Posts: 1163
Joined: 02 Jan 2004 17:39
Family Historian: V6
Location: Lancashire, UK
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by NickWalker » 14 Jun 2017 19:13

I suspect you're right Helen - I had a dig through my recent Marriage sources and the one that mentioned was indeed a combination of 2 banns records and a marriage record that I found as the result of a single search on Lancashire OPC. I just combined them as one marriage source. I haven't ever recorded Banns facts/events and so for me I was quite happy to just add that as extra info to the source text.
Nick Walker
Ancestral Sources Developer

http://www.ancestralsources.com

User avatar
LornaCraig
Megastar
Posts: 1562
Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Banns

Post by LornaCraig » 14 Jun 2017 19:39

I understand what you are saying, Helen, but here is an example where the Banns record and the Marriage record appear immediately next to each other in the same paragraph in the parish register. The marriage record includes the marks of the bride and groom and one of the witnesses, and the signature of the other witness. I would say this single document is a primary source for both the banns and the marriage.

However we are probably splitting hairs here, and Nick has already given his (very reasonable) comments regarding the use of AS to create a banns record.
Attachments
Banns & Marriage example.jpg
Banns & Marriage example.jpg (255.63 KiB) Viewed 5844 times
Lorna

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 875
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by AdrianBruce » 14 Jun 2017 20:58

And just in case you think Lorna's example was a 1-off as it's hand-written, here's the marriage of Richard Bate & Mary Davies in 1775 at Acton, Cheshire (C of E). One source (in my "Splitting" terms) recording 3 dates of banns in a pre-printed Banns section, followed by a conventional record of the marriage. How common they were, I've no idea but I thought that they were reasonably common if only because I've seen them - whether they go beyond Acton even in my lot, I've no idea. Clearly Acton would have had at least one full register like this.
BateRichard-DaviesMary-M1775-Acton.jpg
BateRichard-DaviesMary-M1775-Acton.jpg (146.63 KiB) Viewed 5837 times
Adrian

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1450
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Banns

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 15 Jun 2017 09:27

Those are interesting, Adrian and Lorna.

Adrian, I've always intepreted those as two separate records, as there was no requirement in those printed books for the incumbent to use successive 'slots' for the same couple, so you can find the banns for one couple and the marriage of another in the same 'entry' (according to Mark Herber in Ancestral Trails), probably because the marriage had been called off, significantly delayed or most likely took place in 'the other' parish. However, I recognise that might be too precise for many.

Lorna's example does look to me like a combined record -- and it's probaby significant that it's dated just after Hardwicke's Marriage Act (which introduced banns). You learn something every day.

Post Reply