Genealogy Chat

Does anyone know how long a marriage bann is valid for? I have seen the record of the banns of someone in Nov 1832 but they didn't actually marry until May 1834. I would have thought you would normally get married straight after you attended the church 3 weeks in a row. Lyla

Just been googling 'marriage banns'. If it was in the Church of England, apparently the banns are only valid for three months. If you want to check, just google marriage banns and it's the first thing on the list. A bit long winded though. Kath. x

Thanks, that's what I thought. I assume it was Church of England - I think it just said the parish church for the village in question. They definately didn't go back for more banns before the wedding. This is a really difficult one because in between the banns and the marriage the lady in question had an illegitimate child (my gggrandfather). There is no bastardy order or other note of the father as far as I can see so did she (a) fall pregnant to her future husband and postpone the wedding till after the child was born. If so why didnt she name the father? (b) fall pregnant to some other guy, the wedding gets called off, and then later he marries her anyway and brings the child up as his? For the rest of his life gggrandfather was known by the surname of the guy his mother married. But why didn't they have to do the Banns all over again? I guess I'll never know the answer - unless you clever people have any good suggestions? Such as shame - I would have liked to trace this branch furthest as this is my own surname (or is it?) :( Lyla

Hi Lyla, I have a similar story - banns read in October 1796, but didn't marry until June 1799. Why they didn't marry in 1796 is anyone's guess, but they married in 1799 by licence, which didn't require banns. In between times they had two children, both registered as illegitimate, with him stated as the father. I suspect he got cold feet the first time round, but they ended up together anyway. Have you a copy of the actual marriage entry, and does is definitely say married after banns? Carole

Typical - I didn't write that bit down and now I can't remember. Will have to go back and check next week. I do know they were both of the parish and that it didn't say whether she was spinster or widow in the banns or the marriage which I found odd. I was hoping to find that she was the same lady who had a child in a nearby parish with another man in 1830, then after filing a bastardy order she married him. That child died in 1831 but I cant find out what happened to the husband. This all happened in 1830 so I think it may be the same scarlet women, although why didn't she name the father this time? Thanks for your ideas - will let you know when I've re-checked the record. Lyla

Lyla The father would not be named in the Parish Register because the couple were not married to each other. Clerics being what they were, this was the Church's way of showing disapproval of the sin of producing a child out of wedlock.It had real repercussions - illegitimate children could not enter the professions, for instance, nor could they have a commssion in the Forces (but they could be called/up/pressganged etc, they were quite acceptable as cannon fodder) Some of mine actually have 'bastard child' next to them! The softer-hearted clerics (not many) sometimes went back and entered the father's name in the baptism records if the couple married fairly quickly after the event. Marjorie

Thanks Marjorie, that's very interesting. My gggrandfather was a bricklayer all his life as was his dad or stepdad. Maybe that doesn't count as a profession? Before now I only knew of his illegitimate baptism and his mother's marriage the following year. I had assumed that I would never know the name of his father but now that I have found the marriage banns that happened before my gggrandfathers birth I cant help thinking that maybe the man that she married was indeed his father. Is there any way of finding out for sure? Would a DNA test between my father and another true descendent of this man prove anything?

Lyla A DNA test would only work if both men being tested came from an unbroken line of males - does that make sense?Lets call 'George' the known legitimate son of the man your relly married. He needs to have had sons, who had sons, who had sons etc, right down to the man giving a DNA sample of the 'right' DNA. 'Fred' - the one whose paternity is in question would also need to have had sons who had sons etc. If both men have the same Y chromosome, then that is 99% proof that they both descend from the same man (but not 100%). If they have different Y DNA, then they are definitely not descended from the same man through THE MALE LINE (but still could be descendants of the same man through the female line).This all falls apart if the father was related to the man she married! There is a very slight possibility, although it is a bit late, that a Bastardy Order exists. I always look on A2A first, then try the County Records for the area he was born. Good luck Marjorie

Marjorie As always you are a mine of information! I guess before I start thinking about DNA I need to find another blood relative for this family. I find it strange that the harlot in question, Elizabeth Bates of Bedfordshire didn't have a bastardy order for this child and yet as I mentioned before there was one for a woman with the same name a couple of years earlier. I really can't see how I can prove the father is my ggggrandfather unless some new evidence materialises so I think my family name must die in 1833. Lyla

I re-checked the marriage and it definately says married by banns. I also checked for further banns but they were definately not renewed. Are there any other ways to find out who is the father of an illigitimate child or must I concede defeat at this stage? Lyla

Lyla - maybe as the husband brought up the child as his own (and it might well be his) you need to make a decision about what to do on the research? Had they married at the earlier date and then the child had been born, you would have happily traced back further, not knowing that there might have been some hanky-panky after the wedding and the husband was not the father!! How many of us are following the wrong line? Maybe an awful lot if we are thinking of biological parents!! But this is FAMILY history!! If it were me, I would continue as if they had been married, but would add notes to my tree with lots of explanation. Perhaps there was a family reason that the marriage didn't take place at the original date (a death maybe? etc etc)? Anyway - good luck with whatever you decide to do. Sarah

Lyla I don't have any answers. But it is possible that the father of the child is the man who married the mother, and maybe the wedding was delayed because he wasn't earning enough to support the family. You don't say where this was, but my impression is that illegitimacy was not so shocking in the 1830s as in the later part of the nineteenth century, and that in the country these things were regarded less than in the town. Illegitimacy/questionable paternity matters if the child in question would inherit large property etc, but amongst ordinary workers there is not the same stigma. Most of my female relatives appear to be pregnant when they marry and one of them had a baby 3 weeks after the wedding. A lot was obviously down to the individual clergyman's attitude. nell

Thanks Sarah & Nell This all happened in a village called Toddington in Bedfordshire. The banns took place in Nov/Dec 1832 and then the child was born in Jun 1833. Did they postpone the wedding because she would have had a bump? The actual wedding took place a year afterwards. In a way I wish I had not found the banns as prior to this I had already written off this branch of my tree. The only reason I checked is because I wanted to find out if it said she was a widow or a spinster. In fact both banns and marriage didn’t say either which in itself strikes me as odd. I was curious to see if she is the same Elizabeth Bates that had filed a bastardy order on James Scott in 1830 and married him in Nov 1831 Dunstable (not far from Toddington). Incidentally, I can’t find a death for James Scott and I can‘t find them in any census - maybe he was transported or simply walked out? The child, baptised James Bates Scott died in Jun 1831 before the wedding. I do so want to believe that Edward Horley really was the father of the illegitimate child born 1833 because Horley is my family name. It is just a very hard decision to make because up till now all my research has been backed up by hard evidence. As you say, how can I be sure I am following the right line on any of my branches. Just because they married before giving birth and the father was named on the certificate doesn’t mean it was the truth. Makes you wonder doesn’t it? Sorry if I’m waffling on again. Lyla