* Banns

[gwilym'smum]

Helen, I have a record exactly the same with the banns recorded and the marriage with witnesses on the same form. Date was 1807. Sorry spent 2 hours trying to add screen shot but being useless couldn't do it, but it is the same type of entry as Adrian's. Ann

[AdrianBruce]

... you can find the banns for one couple and the marriage of another in the same 'entry' (according to Mark Herber in Ancestral Trails), ...

Crikey - that's a bit off!

[johnmorrisoniom]

I have several catholic baptism records with the child's marriage entry cramped onto the bottom (In latin of Course) thereby being very difficult to read (and translate).

[ColeValleyGirl]

Crikey - that's a bit off!

Isn't it -- but what's a frugal vicar to do? Paper (and no doubt printed registers) were expensive...

[AdrianBruce]

... I've always interpreted those as two separate records, as there was no requirement in those printed books for the incumbent to use successive 'slots' for the same couple, ...

Thinking a little more deeply (possibly a dangerous thing) I realise that I have always assumed ( ) that the clerk wrote the banns dates into the register at the same time as he wrote the marriage data in, not as the banns were called - so the banns dates are actually, after the event, secondary info. If that were not the case, then it ought to show up sooner or later with a marriage that takes place some time after the 3rd reading - it would appear out of sequence with the marriage dates adjacent, as its place in the book would be determined by the date of the first banns, not the date of the marriage.

I shall keep an eye open for that.

I did manage to find an example for Sandbach of a similar marriage register, where the marriages were in date of marriage order and one ceremony had the date of the first banns out of sequence with the adjacent banns, implying Sandbach had recorded the banns after the event. But it certainly makes me realise that my assumption is not the only way it could be done.

[AdrianBruce]

I have several catholic baptism records with the child's marriage entry cramped onto the bottom (In latin of Course) thereby being very difficult to read (and translate).

I am convinced that doctors are taught how to write prescriptions by Catholic priests.....

[mezentia]

My word! Little did I think when I posted my original message I would provoke such a response. Apologies for not responding sooner, but sometimes family gets in the way of family history

Two of the reasons for posting my request have already been covered with the images earlier in the thread, that is to say where both banns and marriage appear on what is effectively the same source. I do currently record the banns as separate events, usually after using AS to record the marriage, and then linking the Banns as events to the same source; as has been said already Banns do not always result in marriages. My request is due inherently to laziness as it seemed to me that where the marriage PR entry also has details of the dates when the Banns were called, and who did the calling, this could conveniently be accommodated within one or other of the entry forms for the marriage, thus relieving me of having subsequently to record three additional events - it all gets done in one fell swoop.

[LornaCraig]

...thus relieving me of having subsequently to record three additional events

On the occasions when I record banns I create just one banns fact, with 'between... and ...' dates. Three separate events make a narrative report very repetitive to read, and the three dates are normally three consecutive Sundays so unless there are exceptional circumstnaces I reckon one fact suffices.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I agree with Lorna about 1 fact with a date range. Any anomalies (including an annotation that the marriage didn't actually take place) can be handled in a note.

[mezentia]

Three separate events make a narrative report very repetitive to read

Indeed, but unless it becomes possible to associate multiple dates with an event, I prefer to have each separate calling of Banns as as separate event, particularly as the Banns might have been read by different people. This latter might or might not be important, except, say, for where one or more of these might just be part of the family. The issue of the repetitive nature of narrative reports had been discussed before, and I'm sure will be again, but until some methodology is devised for excluding events from generating a sentence to being able to generate a sentence from multiple connected events, I think we will all have to revert to the good old-fashioned method of manually editing narrative reports .

[ColeValleyGirl]

YOu might be able to get a little further using a date phrase although you'll end up with quotes that you won't want.

[Jane]

To suppress a fact from narrative reports you can change the sentence to

Code: Select all

{blank}

You could do this on a fact by fact basis where you have a marriage and then use data references to include one or more bann fact's in the same families marriage fact. Alternately if you are only interested in Banns where you also have a marriage, simply set banns to blank and change the standard marriage template in include up to 3 bann's facts (or possibly up to 9!, one church for each person and the church they are marrying in).

[LornaCraig]

Yet another possibility is to change the sentence template to {note} and then put all relevant information, including the separate dates and the name(s) of the people who read the banns, in the note field.

A lot depends on how much you use reports, and which type of report you favour.

[AdrianBruce]

I agree with Lorna about 1 fact with a date range. ...

Oh thank goodness for that - that's what I do as well for the 3 banns, but I didn't dare admit it - but if Helen and Lorna do it, it must be OK!

[LornaCraig]

Gosh, we'll have to be careful what we say!

[ColeValleyGirl]

Gosh, we'll have to be careful what we say!

Absolutely...