Re: Ain't genealogy wonderful?
- From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 09:09:21 -0000
From: "James D. Thomas" <jdthomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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?>
That is a possibility. Certainly, it seems likely he was at the ceremony if
he didn't actually conduct it. However, what is clear is that he felt his
daughter's marriage was of sufficient personal importance to him to
record it in his own registers, but he was scrupulously accurate enough to
add the information that it had taken place in a different parish. This vital
piece of information was clearly missed by whoever transcribed the
record to the IGI.
Nicholas Walton appears to have been a man of careful habits, for he
was inexplicably missing from his parish of Kirkby Malham for a couple of
years or so during the Civil War and on his return he inserted a note in
the registers complaining bitterly about the fact that the records had not
been kept properly by his stand-in during his absence.
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."