Spent the morning in a dark room looking at marriage records and found this which could explain why I have failed to find a marriage
Ooh! I wonder how come the certificate was issued and signed (marked with an x) - that is usually after the marriage vows have been exchanged and all solemnised.....
I also have one of those marriages forbidden by the mother. Banns on 21,28 Nov. & 5 Dec. 1852 when he was 18/19. but the couple made it to the altar in 1853. Another couple's marriage is duly written up then crossed through stating they never showed up. Well not there anyway. They left for Australia a few years [& children] later in 1836.
Can’t you just see this big buxom women marching down the aisle.... I hope they eventually got together with or without her blessing.
No Lad, 1st attempt was 13 Jul. 1868 edit oops sorry so registered as above. maybe they had another go & it missed being...oh I babble.
However- Michael Tracey in the England & Wales, Civil Registration Marriage Index, 1837-1915 Name: Michael Tracey Registration Year: 1869 Registration Quarter: Apr-May-Jun Registration district: West Bromwich Inferred County: Staffordshire Volume: 6b Page: 852 Records on Page: Name Eliza Jane Jones Eliza Jane Perry Henry Smith Michael Tracey 'Owzat'?
Was he either of these lads which put him under age in 1868? TRACEY, MICHAEL x RATTIKIN GRO Reference: 1850 D Quarter in MANCHESTER Volume 20 Page 592 TRACEY, MICHAEL x SLATTERY GRO Reference: 1851 S Quarter in LIVERPOOL Volume 20 Page 297
Explains the 'too young' age in 1868, I wonder why 19 was acceptable, my relly was also 18 & then married at 19. I would have thought 20/21, but have forgotten the year ages acceptable changed.
Congrats to the 'happy couple'. At least they kept to their original partner, unlike some we've recently heard about so to bed for our older readers in this house. G'night all.