Confused - opinions please

Hermy

I'm looking at the marriage of Frances Josephine Pelly and John Williamson Reid in 1891 (Ancestry and Family Search) and there appears to be two civil records of their marriage, one in Dublin and one in Drogheda.
Assuming that there aren't two Frances Josephine Pelly's who married in Oct-Dec 1891 in Ireland (and I don't think there are) would there be any reason why the same civil marriage would be recorded in two different areas?
As John was Presbyterian and Frances was Catholic I could understand there being two church records but not two civil records.
Anyone got an opinion on this?
Frances Drogheda Dublin
John Drogheda Dublin

1911 Census

L1011

Two civils could be down to both church registrars assuming they had to do a full registration even when one wasn't required.

Hermy

Ah - simple as that!
I suppose when I get the records I can confirm this but as ever I'm always looking for a more complicated explanation when the simple ones are usually the best!:)

Hermy

Dragging this back up if no one minds.

It seems this couple were married in St. Peter's Church, Drogheda on Nov 25th and in the registry office in Dublin on Nov 30th.

Now why would this be so?

pinkypinky

Could it be that the couple was misinformed and told that the marriage wasn't valid between 2 different denominations if it wasn't also celebrated in the Registry Office?

Hermy

Could be pinky. I honestly don't know.

Her family were living at Camden Street and later Harcourt Street so I'm not even sure why they married in Drogheda.
Most of the baptisms and marriages for this Pelly family took place in St. Kevin's Harrington Street.

spurious

I have a couple who also married outside the expected parish but with witnesses only from the bride's side (as in yours). In their case there was a rather speedy arrival soon after - it wouldn't be anything like that, would it?

Tullyneasky

I have similar events in my family from Wicklow Town dating farther back, to 1845, when my grt grt grandparents married. Their daughter told my mother that her parents - groom Methodist, bride RC -- married in the Register Office AND the church because he wouldn't believe (in his heart... not legally) that he was married if he'd only been through a ceremony in the RC church. Before the marriage, they had discussed and settled all the 'mixed' marriage issues with regards to church attendance and obligations, and how the children would be baptised (RC) and educated.

KildareFan

My great great uncle was a protestant, his wife catholic. They married in the Dublin Registry Office & then in St Andrew's Westland Row a few days later. There is only one civil record for them so it is likely that an alert registrar realised they were the same couple. If the couple married in a church in one registrar's district, and in a Registry Office in another district, it's quite likely that the double registration wasn't noticed.

Hermy

Thanks for the replies.

The first born arrived a good ten months after the marriage so no issue there I think.

I get that there being two civil records of the marriage could be a clerical oversight but it's the two ceremonies that intrigues me. Perhaps as Tullyneasky suggests it was merely the choice of one or other of the parties. And there being no hard and fast rule with these things perhaps it will be forever a matter for speculation.

Mollymoo19

Tullyneasky wrote: »

he wouldn't believe (in his heart... not legally) that he was married if he'd only been through a ceremony in the RC church.

Your G-G-Grandfather was right, Tullyneasky. In 1845, in Ireland, a marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic was not legally binding on the Protestant, if it was celebrated in a RC church. As far as I know, this situation persisted until the 1863 Marriage Act.

tabbey

KildareFan wrote: »

My great great uncle was a protestant, his wife catholic. They married in the Dublin Registry Office & then in St Andrew's Westland Row a few days later. There is only one civil record for them so it is likely that an alert registrar realised they were the same couple. If the couple married in a church in one registrar's district, and in a Registry Office in another district, it's quite likely that the double registration wasn't noticed.

Which marriage was registered in the civil register?

As I understand it, both the priest and the civil celebrant were legally obliged to register the event, the two ceremonies were separate in nature, one being a marriage according to the Rites of the Roman Catholic Church, the other being a marriage according to the Marriage Act of 1845.
Presumably if the RC priest was informed that the marriage was also solemnized in a registry office, he might not register it, but the civil celebrant would be more likely to go by the book.

Jellybaby1

Mixed marriages of all kinds can throw up problems. This one surprised me. How about a marriage in a CoI church and then the following year they both got married again in a Presbyterian Church? Were there the same reasons then for this, like one thought they weren't truly married so off they trotted to the Presbyterian church?

spurious

If you haven't already done so, it might be worth looking for an adult baptism for the Presbyterian gent.

pinkypinky

What year was the Presbyterian one, Jelly? It could before they were allowed to solemnise marriages in their own buildings.

Hermy

In another case I did find an adult baptism and this is reflected in the Census going from Methodist in 1901 to Catholic in 1911. But in the case of John Williamson Reid he is still record as Presbyterian on the 1901/11 Census so would that mean he didn't convert?

EDIT: Thought the question was for me.

spurious

Hermy wrote: »

In another case I did find an adult baptism and this is reflected in the Census going from Methodist in 1901 to Catholic in 1911. But in the case of John Williamson Reid he is still record as Presbyterian on the 1901/11 Census so would that mean he didn't convert?

EDIT: Thought the question was for me.

Yes, sorry I should have been clearer.
Belts and braces perhaps. Cover all bases.

Jellybaby1

pinkypinky wrote: »

What year was the Presbyterian one, Jelly? It could before they were allowed to solemnise marriages in their own buildings.

Never thought of that.. CoI was 1857 and Presby. 1858. I haven't managed to trace baptism record yet as I am unsure where the groom was born. Never found one for the bride either though I know where she was born.

pinkypinky

Ah, think it was 1863 that Presbyterians were allowed full status on their own, so that theory doesn't work.