Re: Ain't genealogy wonderful?

----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <genbrit@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: Ain't genealogy wonderful?


From: "Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

"Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mailman.3978.1172646260.30800.genbrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Consider these two entries from the IGI at www.familysearch.org,
> both offical extractions from marriage registers.....
>
Is it a matter of banns, Roy? Scottish marriages often turn up in 2
sets of registers, generally because they've called the banns in the
residential parishes. Lesley Robertson>

You may have a point, Lesley, but the two marriages were definitely
recorded in the registers of both parishes rather than in the banns book
in the one where it didn't take place.

I have very occasionally come across this before, but it's my opinion - on
which I am willing to stand corrected - that there would normally have to
be some special reason for the vicar mentioning a marriage of a
parishioner in another parish. A classic is the marriage of Luke Blanshard
to Issabell Walton in 1647, which the IGI shows as having taken place at
Kirky Malham, Yorkshire. In fact, the published registers reveal that the
marriage was actually at Wressle, some 50 miles away. The reason:
Issabell was the daughter of the Vicar of Kirkby Malham, Nicholas
Walton, and he recorded her marriage in his own registers.


Did Nicholas Walton perhaps conduct the ceremony, even though it was in a different parish? That might account for him putting it into hi register as well as the parish where it was conducted?

James D. Thomas .