Jump to content


Photo

Marriage not displaying if marriage is by Licence

family view; marriage licence

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 SearchingMan

SearchingMan

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 20 November 2018 - 11:27 AM

Hi everybody.  I entered a Marriage Licence Fact for a fella for his 2nd marriage but this marriage does not show in the Father B/M/D information area in Family view. 

 

His 1st marriage was actually by Banns but I entered this as a plain Marriage Fact (Marr).  She died before his 2nd marriage, with no children (not in the dB at least - I haven't actually looked for any!!). 

The 2nd marriage was by licence, which was duly entered using the Marr Lic Fact type.  There were 5 children, duly entered into the dB ('+Click to add child').

The spouses get shown when I click the '2' beside his name.  Choosing the 1st spouse displays the marriage date and place.  Click the '2' again, choose the 2nd spouse - no marriage date, place.

 

Sharing the Marr Lic Fact with the 2nd spouse does not display date, place against his name: this Fact has been left shared for the time being (probably to horror of some!!). Searching this forum using 'marriage', one post highlighted an issue between Ancestry and RM (TreeShare - Marriage Not Showing On Family View): a suggestion was to enter a Marriage Fact in RM as a workaround.  Using that idea, I added a plain Marriage Fact (Marr) for the 2nd marriage - date and place shows against m: in the information area!! 

 

Q - Is there something in RM7 preventing this 2nd marriage by licence showing in Family View.  Does RM have something against marriages by licence!?  I guess the obvious thing is to just use the Marr Fact only: however, using a Marr Lic Fact in the Edit Person window makes it obvious without opening the associated source.  I haven't tried the Marr Bann Fact for the 1st spouse, so I don't know if a similar issue exists with that Fact type.

 

I'm using RM7.5.7.

 



#2 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3173 posts

Posted 20 November 2018 - 12:04 PM

Does RM have something against marriages by licence!?  

 

Basically, yes - RM has something against marriages by license. Namely, RM has no idea what your marriages by license fact means. As far as I know, the only family fact type that will show up at the top of the screen is the basic Marriage fact type. You mention Family View, but I don't think this has anything to do with Family View. The content in the pane at the top of the screen is the same for all main views.

 

Remember that a "family" fact type in RM is pretty much a "couples" fact type and doesn't have anything to do with any children the couple might have had. With that in mind, a "couples" fact type doesn't have to have anything to do when when or where a marriage took place. An obvious and built-in example is the Divorce fact type. RM cannot infer a marriage date or place from a Divorce fact. Neither can it do so from your Marriage by License fact type. It might as well have been called an Xyz by Abc fact type for all it would tell RM about when the marriage took place. Or you could have a "couples" fact type for "Moved into a New House together" or any number of things from which a marriage date or place could not be inferred.

 

Fact types that you add such as "Marriage by License" will look fine in narrative reports, assuming you set up appropriate sentence templates for them. So such fact types are fine for many purposes. They just can't serve as surrogates for the basic marriage fact type that appears at the top of the screen. There may be other processes in RM which would be similarly affected, such as warnings for children born before marriage and that sort of thing.

 

Jerry



#3 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8029 posts

Posted 20 November 2018 - 02:20 PM

A person can have a marriage bann or a license and yet not get married. That is why only the Marriage fact itself is used in the info area and displays.


Renee
RootsMagic

#4 SearchingMan

SearchingMan

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 21 November 2018 - 05:11 AM

Thanks Jerry, thanks Renee. 

 

I knew Banns had to be read over three? weeks.  I never gave much thought to a marriage licence.  As for reading Banns/getting a licence and NOT getting married...

 

I assume Fact types Marriage Contract and Marriage Settlement will be treated likewise by RM (not tested this!!).

 

I searched for 'marriage' in the RM ebook prior to posting but that just seemed to mention 'marriage' and no subtleties.  Over time, I sussed that 'family' meant 'a couple', e.g. for census, electoral registers.

 

I find the associated marriage image online (typically Ancestry Library) and enter a Marriage fact in the dB: I saw 'by licence' and decided to do differently this time!!  Looking thru my dB, I've used the plain Marriage fact more often than not: however, I've several Marr Lic facts - obviously not noticing the blank space in the information area!!  Must make an opticians appointment...  Looks like some editing might be reqd.

 

On a more philosophical point: when do a couple actually become married?: when either the bride or groom says 'I do'; when the vicar/curate/whoever says 'I now pronounce you...'; when the register gets signed.  I guess it depends upon the country or ceremony - I'm in the UK (and not married!!).

 



#5 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8029 posts

Posted 21 November 2018 - 05:44 PM

My understanding is when the ceremony takes place by someone officiating it. Registration doesn't always happen on the same day. 


Renee
RootsMagic

#6 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1011 posts

Posted 23 November 2018 - 07:58 PM

There are two events: 1) and intention to marry and 2) the actual ceremony. In the US there is typically the issuance of a license to marry then several days later the actual ceremony. The license is signed by the officiant and returned to the registrar to be recorded. Both dates (license and ceremony) are recorded. Sometimes, a license is issued but no ceremony takes place. In this case, the couple are not considered to be married. Now, in some US states a couple can (I believe) be married by same clerk who issues the license. I believe in some states any notary can officiate.

 

As I understand in UK the intention can be evidenced by 1) banns or 2) a license. (At one time banns were the normal method and licenses were quite unusual.) In either case there is still some ceremony. It's the ceremony that makes it official. 



#7 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3173 posts

Posted 23 November 2018 - 08:31 PM

...  Sometimes, a license is issued but no ceremony takes place. In this case, the couple are not considered to be married. ...

 

There is another similar situation. Namely, a license is issued, the ceremony takes place, but the license is never returned to the courthouse for the marriage to be properly recorded. This sounds like an impossible or a rare situation, but in working with archivists in several counties, I have discovered that this happens much more often than you would expect. Indeed, it happened with my maternal grandparents. They were well and truly married and there was even a newspaper article  at the time that described the place where they were married, the members of the wedding party, what the wedding party was wearing, the name of the minister who performed the marriage, and where my grandparents were going to live after the wedding. They remained married until my grandmother's death 45 years later.

 

I suppose that some of these situations could be written off as sloppiness on the art of the officiant, not following through with all their duties as officiant. Another situation that seems to happen a lot is that the officiant returns the license to the courthouse for the wrong county. Sometimes these wrongly returned licenses find their way back to the correct county eventually and sometimes they don't.

 

Jerry



#8 KFN

KFN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 23 November 2018 - 09:19 PM

Lets us not forget that in some states you can now have a common law marriage, where a license was not issued. There are specific requirements and not all states allow this type of marriage. Also historically in the USA common law marriage was more common prior to the 1800s. In other countries marriage takes several different forms, and you may need to brush up on the law and/or customs before declaring marriage information, remembering that what is law or custom today may not be so historically.

#9 Trebor22

Trebor22

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted 24 November 2018 - 05:54 AM


As I understand in UK the intention can be evidenced by 1) banns or 2) a license. (At one time banns were the normal method and licenses were quite unusual.) In either case there is still some ceremony. It's the ceremony that makes it official. 

UK - I think perhaps Banns were normal but I have still found quite a good percentage of family married by licence particularly in the 19th century. Either way Don is correct a formal marriage was needed to complete the process. Some banns have the date the marriage took place recorded as well. I have at least 2 instances where banns were recorded but no marriage took place, confirmed in one instance where the 'bride' married someone else. I also have  instance where banns were read in 2 parishes (where they were living) but married in a third.

There is an article on the subject at :-

  https://www.familyse...gland_and_Wales



#10 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1011 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 10:38 PM

I also have  instance where banns were read in 2 parishes (where they were living) but married in a third.

 

It was common for well-off sorts to have banns read in an outlying parish, then have the marriage ceremony performed in their home church. I'm not sure what advantage came from doing this.