Morning everyone,

Carole one of our three transcribing coordinators has just started working on St Lawrence Tinsley.

What we have found is that there seems to be a three year period back in 1810-1813 when NO marriages were performed. I have checked with Sheffield Archives and they have not been able to find any for that three year gap.

My question to you.... as anyone else managed to find them or why there would be that gap.

The church was there from 1711.

Elaine in a snowy Ottawa.

Hi Elaine,

I looked in the newspaper archives and found an article from 1811 which said that the vicar of Tinsley, the Rev. R.H. Chapman, had got married. It mentioned that he was the Chaplain in Ordinary to HRH the Prince Regent. I guess he would have to provide regular services to the Regent instead of serving his own congregation. I found two marriage licences from 1812 where the brides and grooms all said they lived in Tinsley. Searching for the marriages, it turned out they’d had the job done in Rotherham. Perhaps the vicar there helped out with the Tinsley services while Rev. Chapman was busy with his royal duties?

Heths

Thank you Heather for your very detailed reply. It all sounds plausible.

So I think we can safely put this issue to bed.

Thanks Elaine.

Heather and Elaine,
RH Chapman was an appointed Chaplain in Ordinary to the Royal household from 1808 to 1820. In any one year the household had exactly 48 appointed Chaplains in Ordinary, and in any one year each one was required to spend one week within the Royal Household. For the other 51 weeks each would be able to go about his normal business in his own parish.
Dave

Thanks for the info Dave - we have a mystery then!

I’ve looked at the newspapers again. There’s a snippet from 18 Jan 1812 which says that Earl Fitzwilliam had appointed Rev. James Mower as vicar of Tinsley to replace Rev. Chapman who had resigned. It seems that shortly after his marriage, Rev Chapman moved to be vicar of Cuxton in Kent. Rev James Mower was still vicar of Tinsley when he died in December 1834.

Dave - do you know if churches all charged the same fees? Could Rotherham have been cheaper?

Heths

I understand that church charges for marriages were normally between 12shillings and 15 shillings and sixpence.
However some churches would do marriages for free in order to get people to marry rather than “live in sin”.
The period of 181O to 1815 was a particularly harsh on low paid workers for a combination of reasons. Unemployment was high because of mechanisation in the Industrial Revolution and the Napoleonic wars took away lots of men who “took the king’s shilling” meaning overall there were fewer marriages and perhaps there were some churches who did not take their fee for marriage.
It is perhaps noteworthy that Tinsley was a chapel-of-ease for Rotherham.
Dave

Another reason for the unemployment was that companies couldn’t easily export to the European mainland because of the war with France. The government had also started using paper money (£1 and £5 notes) in the late 1790’s because of the war, and that had created inflation. Employers didn’t raise wages accordingly though, and so workers were worse off. This meant that manufacturers - having lost their export customers - found it hard to sell their products in the home market as well.

Heths

With reference to the original question it may be fruitful to look at individual marriages either side of the gap to see who performed them. Then compare to who was performing them at Rotherhamat the same times, and in the gap
Dave

Following up and Dave's suggestion......

The actual "missing marriages" that Carole & I had looked at stemmed from a miss numbering of the years covered. We were originally looking for 1810-1838.

With a number of backward & forward emails with Sheffield Archives we have now narrowed it down to 1810-1813 that remain questionable.

Terry is currently photographing 1813-1838 so I can't say who the vicar was at that time.
However when I look at the last two jpgs for 1810 I have found the following.

24 Sep 1810 the curate was Henry Pearson.
The previous marriage was dated 1807 Vicar was Charles Chadwick.
The next marriage was dated 16 Dec 1799 Vicar Charles Chadwick.

What we might find when we actually start transcribing is that the Vicar was just filling in empty spots in the register. Sooooo the missing? 1810-1813 might be tucked away in another book.

I think we have been as accurate as we can be. Fingers crossed they will show up.

As you said Dave, St Lawrence was a Chapelry of Rotherham, in that case the wedding could have taken place at St Lawrence but placed in the Rotherham register. A similar issue happened with St Nicholas Bradfield being a chapelry St Mary Ecclesfield. If I remember correctly Ecclesall Parish Church was a Chapelry of Sheffield Parish Church and the event was entered in both registers.

Hope that enlightens us all.

Elaine.

"Tucked away in another book". I think a new style of marriage register began in 1813, at the same time that printed baptism and burial registers were introduced, which together would have been a considerable expense for a parish. Perhaps they saw it coming, and were trying to avoid puchasing an additional old-style volume which would only be used a few times.

Sally