* Citing Marriage Banns

[Medows]

I am using Ancestry to locate marraige details. I have found 3 records - the actual marriage, the bans for the groom (principal 1) and the bans for the bride (principal 2). The banns were read in 2 different parishes albeit the same county but it is possible to have banns read in different parishes in different counties.
I am a templated user and a splitter but whether you use generic or templated the conundrum is the same.
I record the church, parish, records office (where original records are held), records office archive reference, collection name, URL and the saved image name.
I could create a template that has all the fields for principal 1 and principal 2.
You can't always find by sets of Banns.
An alternative way is to create a source citation for each set of Banns and attach both citations to a single fact.
The other thought, which I don't think will work is to create a separate fact and source for each set of banns but that would cause 2 fact entries to be created in each principal as the marriage facts are family records.

How do others enter this sort of information? I am thinking I may have answered my own question in creating a single fact with multiple sources and citations.

[ColeValleyGirl]

If they were read in two different churches, technically they were two different events...

Pragmatically, assuming they were read on the same dates in both parishes, I'd create a single event and cite both sources.

[tatewise]

But that would not allow the two parishes to be recorded in the Place and Address fields.
Also, if they were different dates as well then two events are needed anyway.

Even though the Banns were read in different parishes, and possibly on different dates, they 'involve' both the bride and the groom, so two Marriage Banns family events and two Sources seems reasonable.
However, you might need to customise the local narrative Sentence to indicate that only one fiancee was present.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I'd ask myself what's the value if recording the two place and address fields, when I'd have that information in the source if needed.

[tatewise]

But what would you do if the dates were different too?

[ColeValleyGirl]

But what would you do if the dates were different too?

Pragmatically, assuming they were read on the same dates in both parishes, I'd create a single event and cite both sources.

[handsn14]

For a marriage to take place with banns preliminaries, they need to be called three times at the 'principal service' and within the three month period of the wedding. They do not have to be called on consecutive weekends. Three different parish churches may be involved if the parties live in different areas and are getting married in a third church. When more than one parish church is involved different calling dates are quite likely.
Nick.

[Trivvie]

Just a thought, being the person that asked the original poster what I should do....

1. One set of banns were read from a week earlier than the other set. As two of the dates coincide this means there would be 4 different dates in total between them.

2. Technically they were not a family at this point but about to become one. In reality I have put my relative in FH and then input these in as parents and so they became a family before they physically were, if you get my meaning. I only found the marriage banns the other day on Ancestry and thus the conundrum arose.

[Gary_G]

[snip]
How do others enter this sort of information? I am thinking I may have answered my own question in creating a single fact with multiple sources and citations.

I'd likely attach the banns to the marriage event they support. If one thinks about it, the banns have little value in themselves other than to indicate where the two parties likely lived and give an indication of a probable marriage data and location. I typically only use them to help me focus my research for a marriage record.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Even if there's other value in the banns source (I have an early nineteenth century one that idetifies both fathers by occupation and residence, which was really useful in working out which James and John families i was dealing with when theyre both really common surnames in Pembrokeshire) the actual banns event is only really significant if the marriage didnt take place.

[AdrianBruce]

My personal preference is to explicitly record the banns as "Marriage Banns" events for the couple in question. I do sympathise with anyone who doesn't particularly want to record the banns as separate events but for whatever (perhaps anally retentive) reason, I do record them.

I attach an image for my relatives John Burgess and Sarah Horton. They married at Barthomley, Cheshire (the bride's home parish) in 1757 and had banns called at Knutsford and Barthomley. The Barthomley record shows both banns and the actual marriage, so is one source record. (I am a Method 1 Splitter). The Knutsford record is a handwritten record referring only to the banns - so quite different from the Barthomley record, and is a separate source record.

Screenshot 2024-07-12 202558.jpg (54.45 KiB) Viewed 739 times

The image shows the 3 "events" for the couple - banns at Barthomley, banns at Knutsford and marriage at Barthomley.

The two banns-events are both described as "frm 4 Sep 1757 to 18 Sep 1757" and I have manually altered the narrative sentence in both cases to list the 3 dates rather than the range.

I might add that in Scotland, the banns / proclamation / request for proclamation / whatever is often the only record of the marriage pre-1855 - there might be no explicit record of the marriage ceremony itself. This encouraged me to take care to explicitly record the banns / proclamation / request for proclamation / whatever in Scotland, prompting me to take a similar detailed view in England.

[arthurk]

However, you might need to customise the local narrative Sentence to indicate that only one fiancee was present.

There was no obligation for either or both of an engaged couple to be present to hear the banns read. If they were there, there wouldn't be any record of the fact, so stating that "only one fiancee was present" goes way beyond the available evidence.

(This refers to the period we mostly deal with. I don't know what the situation is now that the legal preliminaries for marriage are dealt with by the register office; are banns still read in church?)

[tatewise]

The OP mentioned "the bans for the groom (principal 1) and the bans for the bride (principal 2)" as two events.
So presumably there was some evidence to suggest only one fiancee was involved at each event.
The default Marriage Banns sentence says: "{couple} had marriage banns published {date} {place} {their ages}"
So I wondered if the default Sentence might need adjusting, especially as users may not be aware that can be done locally for a specific fact.

[AdrianBruce]

The OP mentioned "the bans for the groom (principal 1) and the bans for the bride (principal 2)" as two events.
So presumably there was some evidence to suggest only one fiancee was involved at each event. ...

I interpreted that as meaning that banns were read in the groom's parish and also in the bride's parish. Effectively, their involvement is derived only from their residence.

Both parties must be mentioned on both occasions, otherwise the function of asking for any objections can't be carried out. I wouldn't customise the local narrative sentence myself, because I'd add the explanatory text to the note for the banns event - but if someone doesn't use notes and wants to explain why two parishes were involved, then customisation would seem the only way forward. Though I suspect that if someone doesn't use notes, then they're unlikely to use narrative sentences

One further note - I've seen very few cases where there's evidence of banns being read in two parishes. However, I'm not sure if this is because records of the banns-only event tend not to survive, or if it's because the "other" party (usually the groom) lodged in the bride's (usually) parish for X weeks beforehand.

[arthurk]

I think you're correct on all counts, Adrian.

On your final note - sometimes between 1754 and 1837 you find a register where the entries start with the banns and continue with details of the marriage; if the marriage was elsewhere, the second part is left blank or occasionally marked "Married at...". However, this format wasn't universally used.

Where the registers don't follow that pattern, from looking at archives catalogues I think the main reason for not finding banns-only records is that the separate banns registers haven't always survived. But I've also just come across the suggestion that although couples were 'directed' to have the banns read in the parish of each of them, it wasn't until 1823 that this became mandatory (Mark Herber, Ancestral Trails).