Genealogy Chat

Have come in a bit late on this one but yes, it's probably that the Churchwardens have asked someone to take the service, as they do in interregnums, holidays, illness etc. hence the wording.

Many thanks to all that replied - I think Ozibird is right re visiting ministers having to get permission. I was going to google it next and she saved me the bother - thanks!

In England, a marriage can only take place in an approved location. CofE parish churches and chapelries, synagogues and meeting houses were routinely approved, provided they had a secure place to store their registers. There are two aspects to most marriages - the religious one (which doesn't count) and the civil one (which does). Only authorized persons are allowed to oversee the signing of the register, which concludes the civil aspect of the marriage. Before 1898, only CofE, quakers and jews were allowed to be authorized persons. After 1898, non-conformists (but not RCs) were authorized (I don't know the current status of RCs). If no authorized person officiated at a non-conformist marriage, then a registrar had to be present to oversee the signing of the register.

Maryjane-Sue

I think you might be right about the consent referring to the minister. This is from a current church website ...

If the officiating minister is not the minister of that congregation, he/she should only conduct the marriage with the consent of the congregation ....

Now, in your case I think they would be CofE ministers. It looks as if JH Mules was often unavailable & another clergyman was called in.

Ozi.

From 1812 to 1822 the minister of the church was Richard Preston, Curate. After that and up till 1837 it was J H Mules, who on occasions was replaced by an "officiating minister" or a vicar from another parish. It is in the middle of June 1832 that the "w.c.of w." starts and is written when someone other than J H Mules carries out the service, but not every time. So, for example, Hy. Codrington may have carried out 5 marriages but the "w.c.of c" is only against 3 of the marriages, maybe by oversight?

So to me, it looks like the congregation had to give their permission for another vicar/curate/officiating minister to carry out a marriage ceremony? The number of times Rev Mules is replaced does increase considerably after 1830.

Am I right in thinking that in those days Non-Conformists could only get married in CofE churches? And would a Non-Conformist minister be allowed to officiate at a marriage service?

You're right.
Only marriages in certain places were legal.
I've seen PRs for a Catholic family who married in a parish church.

I bet there's a simple explanation somewhere.

Gwyn

Yes Gwyn - take your point, but, before Registry offices and before some faiths had their own places of worship didn't all faiths get married in the local parish church? Or did they have to get married in the local parish church (to make sure it was legal) before they then married in their own place of worship? I'm sure there was something about Jewish weddings in the 19th century that had something like this about them.

Interesting topic - I want to know the answer when maryjane-sue finds out!

Jill

Could you ask a friendly local vicar?? They must have come across it before...

It sounds as if these are Church of England records, ...ie.they are referred to as parish records.
It would be strange for so many marriages to be challenged.
I'd be interested to find the answer to this.
I've never come across it.

Gwyn

What religion is the church?

I've heard of some - quakers I think - where half of the congregation witnessed the marriage ... racking my brains now trying to remember where I read about this. May have been one of those Family History magazines.

Jill

Just thought of something - with you saying someone challenged the banns, perhaps it could also/ otherwise be that someone made an objection at the wedding for some reason, but others in the congregation said the objection wasn't valid?

Perhaps when the clergyman did ask if there were objections, someone made one?

It's not something I have come across before and is puzzling. One suggestion I have had is maybe someone challenged the Banns (and was over ruled) or perhaps upset the congregation by being late in pregnancy. But at least one of the marriage was by licence.

That sounds unusual. Perhaps it means, with the consent of the couple and their relatives who were present? I can't imagine - if there was a church full of people - they would all have to be asked for consent.

I've seen "married by consent of all parties" before - which I think means the bride, the groom and their parents freely chose to proceed with the wedding, but the "congregation" bit is puzzling.

I am going through some parish records for marriages in the 1830s and quite a few of them have a note saying "with consent of congregation". Does anyone know what this means, please? Would it be because the couple are underage?