St.Georges Hanover Square

[John Stevens]

This may seem a very strange question but was there anything "unusual" about
mid-Victorian marriages
that took place at St.Georges Hanover Square?

The reason I ask is that Hanover Square is/was quite 'upmarket' and I have
recently discovered that
two ancestors got married there but neither or them lived anywhere nearby
and both came from very
poor families.

Was it perhaps (like St.Martin in the Field) a venue of convenience, no
questions asked?

Thanks

John

[Peter Goodey]

Post by John Stevens
This may seem a very strange question but was there anything "unusual"
about mid-Victorian marriages
that took place at St.Georges Hanover Square?
The reason I ask is that Hanover Square is/was quite 'upmarket' and I
have recently discovered that
two ancestors got married there but neither or them lived anywhere
nearby and both came from very
poor families.
Was it perhaps (like St.Martin in the Field) a venue of convenience,
no questions asked?

It had both reputations. It was certainly up-market but it wasn't a case
of no-questions asked - Just one question - "Have you got the money?". Or
perhaps I'm thinking of earlier times.

[Geoff Pearson]

Post by John Stevens
This may seem a very strange question but was there anything "unusual" about
mid-Victorian marriages
that took place at St.Georges Hanover Square?
The reason I ask is that Hanover Square is/was quite 'upmarket' and I have
recently discovered that
two ancestors got married there but neither or them lived anywhere nearby
and both came from very
poor families.
Was it perhaps (like St.Martin in the Field) a venue of convenience, no
questions asked?
Thanks
John

my parents we re married there in 1945 - they had no money at all but my
father attended the church. Many of my ancestors were married there. One
was a purveyor of asses milk to George II - probably a cowman and also not
upmarket.

[Dennis Glover]

I thought that St. Georges Hanover Square was just a registration district
and not a specific church. Perhaps some one will correct me if I'm wrong.

Post by Geoff Pearson

Post by John Stevens
This may seem a very strange question but was there anything "unusual" about
mid-Victorian marriages
that took place at St.Georges Hanover Square?
The reason I ask is that Hanover Square is/was quite 'upmarket' and I have
recently discovered that
two ancestors got married there but neither or them lived anywhere nearby
and both came from very
poor families.
Was it perhaps (like St.Martin in the Field) a venue of convenience, no
questions asked?
Thanks
John

my parents we re married there in 1945 - they had no money at all but my
father attended the church. Many of my ancestors were married there. One
was a purveyor of asses milk to George II - probably a cowman and also not
upmarket.

[Peter Goodey]

Post by Dennis Glover
Perhaps some one will correct me if I'm wrong.

OK That bit's right; the rest is wrong.

http://www.stgeorgeshanoversquare.org/

[Dennis Glover]

That bits right and the other bit was right (See other replies)

Post by Peter Goodey

Post by Dennis Glover
Perhaps some one will correct me if I'm wrong.

OK That bit's right; the rest is wrong.
http://www.stgeorgeshanoversquare.org/

[Peter Goodey]

Post by Dennis Glover
That bits right and the other bit was right (See other replies)

No it wasn't.

You said "I thought that St. Georges Hanover Square was just a
registration district and not a specific church."

As I demonstrated, it IS a specific church; NOT just a registration
district.

It is the church after which the registration district was named and
dates from more than 100 years before registration districts were
invented.

[Bill Burgoyne]

Yes its a Registration District, this is from FreeBMD :-
The district St. Geo. Han. Sq. is an alternative name for St George Hanover
Square and it spans the boundaries of the counties of London and Surrey and
information about it can be found here.
:-
St. George Hanover Square
Created 1st July 1837. In Middlesex until 1889.
Sub-districts : Belgrave; Hanover Square; Knightsbridge; Mayfair; Mayfair
and Knightsbridge; St. John; St. Margaret; St. Margaret and St. John;
Victoria; Westminster St. John; Westminster St. Margaret.
GRO volumes : I (1837-51); 1a (1852-1930).
St. George Hanover Square, Westminster St. John (from 1868), Westminster
St. Margaret (from 1868), Westminster St. Peter (from 1868).
Registers now in Westminster district.
--
Bill Burgoyne

My website :- http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~billburgoyne/
All outgoing mail checked by Norton 2005 anti-virus

Post by Dennis Glover
I thought that St. Georges Hanover Square was just a registration district
and not a specific church. Perhaps some one will correct me if I'm wrong.

Post by Geoff Pearson

Post by John Stevens
This may seem a very strange question but was there anything "unusual" about
mid-Victorian marriages
that took place at St.Georges Hanover Square?
The reason I ask is that Hanover Square is/was quite 'upmarket' and I have
recently discovered that
two ancestors got married there but neither or them lived anywhere nearby
and both came from very
poor families.
Was it perhaps (like St.Martin in the Field) a venue of convenience, no
questions asked?
Thanks
John

my parents we re married there in 1945 - they had no money at all but my
father attended the church. Many of my ancestors were married there.
One was a purveyor of asses milk to George II - probably a cowman and
also not upmarket.

[Geoff Pearson]

Post by Dennis Glover
I thought that St. Georges Hanover Square was just a registration district
and not a specific church. Perhaps some one will correct me if I'm wrong.

Post by Geoff Pearson

Post by John Stevens
This may seem a very strange question but was there anything "unusual" about
mid-Victorian marriages
that took place at St.Georges Hanover Square?
The reason I ask is that Hanover Square is/was quite 'upmarket' and I have
recently discovered that
two ancestors got married there but neither or them lived anywhere nearby
and both came from very
poor families.
Was it perhaps (like St.Martin in the Field) a venue of convenience, no
questions asked?
Thanks
John

my parents we re married there in 1945 - they had no money at all but my
father attended the church. Many of my ancestors were married there.
One was a purveyor of asses milk to George II - probably a cowman and
also not upmarket.

I have my parents' wedding photos and I am named after the then Rector
Stephen Phillimore (my second name).

[Hugh Watkins]

Post by Dennis Glover
I thought that St. Georges Hanover Square was just a registration district
and not a specific church. Perhaps some one will correct me if I'm wrong.

you did not google or think carefuly

regisytration districts were named from prominent local features

a town a city or here a church
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=St.+Georges+Hanover+Square&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.stgeorgeshanoversquare.org/

St George's was built 1721-1724 to the designs of John James, as one of
the Fifty Churches projected by Queen Anne's Act of 1711. The reredos is
from the workshop of Grinling Gibbons and frames a 'Last Supper' painted
by William Kent in 1724. The windows contain Flemish glass of the early
16th century from Antwerp. George Frederick Handel was a regular
worshipper at St George's which is now home to the annual Handel Festival.

Handel Messiah Thursday, 1 December 2005, 7.00pm
St George's Church, Hanover Square, London, W1
seats at sides and backleft
St John's Smith Square

St John's, Smith Square, London, UK;
An old church near to the Houses of Parliament, now used as a venue for
classical
music.
concert tickets, classical music in a fine example of English Baroque
architecture.
www.londonsoloists.com/stjohnssmithsquare.htm

is the one I have played in

Hugh W

[Charles Ellson]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 05:27:49 +0000, Hugh Watkins

Post by Hugh Watkins

Post by Dennis Glover
I thought that St. Georges Hanover Square was just a registration district
and not a specific church. Perhaps some one will correct me if I'm wrong.

you did not google or think carefuly
registration districts were named from prominent local features

SGHS might (or might not?) be, but IME most of the 1837 incarnations
seemed to copy the existing Poor Law Unions' names, being the reason
why Chester (and various other prominent places) don't feature in the
original set of names.

Post by Hugh Watkins
a town a city or here a church

<snip>

[Peter Goodey]

Post by Charles Ellson
SGHS might (or might not?) be, but IME most of the 1837 incarnations
seemed to copy the existing Poor Law Unions' names

AIUI St George Hanover Square remained a parish based poor law authority
under the new Poor Law (there must be an official name for parishes like
this!). It formally became a Union much later when other parishes were
amalgamated with it. So really that rule of RD names coming from the Poor
Law Union name still held good for St Geo H Sq.

[Andrew Sellon]

<snip> Many of my ancestors were married there. One
was a purveyor of asses milk to George II - probably a cowman and also not
upmarket.

Geoff -

I don't know how far up the market scale that occupation might be, but I
suspect it must be one of the more uncommon ones! I would be very happy
to have an asses milk purveyor in my tree.

Admittedly I thought it was Cleopatra who bathed in the stuff, but
Shakespeare may have got that wrong, and not many can trace their
families back to Ancient Egypt.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
I beg to remind you that though considered by many people as a Radical,
I was the first person to insure cathedrals in this country. I forget
the name of my antipodes predecessor who burnt down the library in
Alexandria. Rev. Sydney Smith 1771-1854, Canon of St. Paul's.

[Chris Newall]

Post by Andrew Sellon

<snip> Many of my ancestors were married there. One was a purveyor
of asses milk to George II - probably a cowman and also not upmarket.

Geoff -
I don't know how far up the market scale that occupation might be, but
I suspect it must be one of the more uncommon ones! I would be very
happy to have an asses milk purveyor in my tree.
Admittedly I thought it was Cleopatra who bathed in the stuff, but
Shakespeare may have got that wrong, and not many can trace their
families back to Ancient Egypt.

It could be argued that Jewish Cohens, alleged to be descendants of
Aaron, and other Levites, who would be distant cousins of Moses, were in
Egypt about three millennia ago. There is a strong rumour to this
effect, although I believe there is no hard evidence to date.

Ducks quickly to avoid flak :-)

[Chris Dickinson]

Post by Andrew Sellon
Admittedly I thought it was Cleopatra who bathed in the stuff, but
Shakespeare may have got that wrong, and not many can trace their families
back to Ancient Egypt.

It could be argued that Jewish Cohens, alleged to be descendants of Aaron,
and other Levites, who would be distant cousins of Moses, were in Egypt
about three millennia ago. There is a strong rumour to this effect,
although I believe there is no hard evidence to date.
Ducks quickly to avoid flak :-)

Mind you, that would be a considerable extension backwards. Cleopatra was
merely Ptolemaic.


Chris

[Nick]

Post by Andrew Sellon

<snip> Many of my ancestors were married there. One was a purveyor of
asses milk to George II - probably a cowman and also not upmarket.

Geoff -
I don't know how far up the market scale that occupation might be, but I
suspect it must be one of the more uncommon ones! I would be very happy to
have an asses milk purveyor in my tree.
Admittedly I thought it was Cleopatra who bathed in the stuff, but
Shakespeare may have got that wrong, and not many can trace their families
back to Ancient Egypt.

It could be argued that Jewish Cohens, alleged to be descendants of Aaron,
and other Levites, who would be distant cousins of Moses, were in Egypt
about three millennia ago. There is a strong rumour to this effect,
although I believe there is no hard evidence to date.

That would apply to all Jews - not just Cohens (Cohanim) and Levites
(Leviim). After a split though the Kingdom of Israel divided into two
kingdoms - Judah and Israel. I think that only the tribes of Judah and
Benjamin forming the Kingdom of Judah are antecedents of presentday Jews.
See http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm. The Kingdom of Israel was dispersed
and hence led to the reference to the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.

This brings back history classes at Jewish religion classes.

Nick

[Charani]

Post by Chris Newall
It could be argued that Jewish Cohens, alleged to be descendants of
Aaron, and other Levites, who would be distant cousins of Moses, were in
Egypt about three millennia ago. There is a strong rumour to this
effect, although I believe there is no hard evidence to date.

You might find "Act of God" by Graham Phillips of interest in that
respect. It seems to be a carefully researched book and gives some
very logical explanations of various Bibilical events.

[Chris Dickinson]

Andrew Sellon wrote:

<snip>

I would be very happy to have an asses milk purveyor in my tree.
Admittedly I thought it was Cleopatra who bathed in the stuff, but
Shakespeare may have got that wrong, and not many can trace their families
back to Ancient Egypt.

<snip>


Maybe he got confused between asses and asps (to have an asp in your tree
would at least prove its bark was tougher than its bite).

Anyway, you musn't forget Cleopatra had just been rolled up in a carpet, so
needed a good bathe.

Chris

[Roy Stockdill]

Post by Chris Dickinson
Maybe he got confused between asses and asps (to have an asp in your tree
would at least prove its bark was tougher than its bite).
Anyway, you musn't forget Cleopatra had just been rolled up in a carpet, so
needed a good bathe.>

Ah...now that reminds me of one of the all-time great puns!

Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor starred in the 1963 film version
of "Antony and Cleopatra", which got not very good reviews. In fact
one paper (I think it was the Grauniad) headlined its review.....

THE BIGGEST ASP DISASTER IN THE WORLD

(For our American friends, on whom British humour is frequently lost,
I had better explain that there was a famous song sung by the
Lancashire singer Gracie Fields called "The Biggest Aspidistra in the
World").

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."

Mark Twain

[Chris Dickinson]

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Chris Dickinson
Maybe he got confused between asses and asps (to have an asp in your tree
would at least prove its bark was tougher than its bite).
Anyway, you musn't forget Cleopatra had just been rolled up in a carpet, so
needed a good bathe.>

Ah...now that reminds me of one of the all-time great puns!
Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor starred in the 1963 film version
of "Antony and Cleopatra", which got not very good reviews. In fact
one paper (I think it was the Grauniad) headlined its review.....
THE BIGGEST ASP DISASTER IN THE WORLD
(For our American friends, on whom British humour is frequently lost,
I had better explain that there was a famous song sung by the
Lancashire singer Gracie Fields called "The Biggest Aspidistra in the
World").

Another great Classical pun: Kenneth Williams (on being stabbed):

Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me.

(beats Et Tu Brute)


Chris

[Don Aitken]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:32:36 +0000 (UTC), "Chris Dickinson"

Post by Chris Dickinson

Post by Roy Stockdill

Post by Chris Dickinson
Maybe he got confused between asses and asps (to have an asp in your tree
would at least prove its bark was tougher than its bite).
Anyway, you musn't forget Cleopatra had just been rolled up in a carpet, so
needed a good bathe.>

Ah...now that reminds me of one of the all-time great puns!
Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor starred in the 1963 film version
of "Antony and Cleopatra", which got not very good reviews. In fact
one paper (I think it was the Grauniad) headlined its review.....
THE BIGGEST ASP DISASTER IN THE WORLD
(For our American friends, on whom British humour is frequently lost,
I had better explain that there was a famous song sung by the
Lancashire singer Gracie Fields called "The Biggest Aspidistra in the
World").

Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me.
(beats Et Tu Brute)

Deservedly famous, but, as I discovered recently, The "Carry On"
scriptwriter (was it Talbot Rothwell?) stole it from an early edition
of "Take It From Here" by Galton and Simpson.

[Chris Dickinson]

Don Aitken wrote:

<snip>

Post by Don Aitken

Post by Chris Dickinson
Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me.
(beats Et Tu Brute)

Deservedly famous, but, as I discovered recently, The "Carry On"
scriptwriter (was it Talbot Rothwell?) stole it from an early edition
of "Take It From Here" by Galton and Simpson.

Yes - I see what you mean.

http://www.whirligig-tv.co.uk/radio/tifh.htm


Ah well, just goes to show that great jokes never die.


Chris

[Eve McLaughlin]

Post by John Stevens
This may seem a very strange question but was there anything "unusual" about
mid-Victorian marriages
that took place at St.Georges Hanover Square?

They were not fussy, and married anyone to anyone as long as the
standard fee was forthcoming.
So anyone avoiding family wrath, interference etc would go there and
rely on the anonymity of it.
Also, of course, servants of the rich lived in the parish and could
marry there as of right.

[Andrew Sellon]

Post by John Stevens
This may seem a very strange question but was there anything "unusual" about
mid-Victorian marriages
that took place at St.Georges Hanover Square?
<snip>
Was it perhaps (like St.Martin in the Field) a venue of convenience, no
questions asked?

John -

Certainly within the past fifty years it was deemed that any necessary
residence qualifications within the parish could be met by leaving a
small (packed) suitcase with the incumbent for a fortnight.

Presumably this was an old established custom of the parish.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
There are some letters and passages which ought not to have been
published; which a sense of common decency and morality ought to have
suppressed; and which, we feel assured, would never have seen the light
in this country. Rev. Sydney Smith 1771-1854, Canon of St. Paul's.

[L***@aol.com]

Post by John Stevens
This may seem a very strange question but was there anything "unusual" about
mid-Victorian marriages
that took place at St.Georges Hanover Square?
The reason I ask is that Hanover Square is/was quite 'upmarket' and I have
recently discovered that
two ancestors got married there but neither or them lived anywhere nearby
and both came from very
poor families.
Was it perhaps (like St.Martin in the Field) a venue of convenience, no
questions asked?
Thanks
John

[colcestrianinexile]

St.George's, Hanover Square was famous/notorious for not asking awkward
questions of the couples who asked to be married there. It was
therefore a favourite destination for runaway couples. If your
ancestors were married there, it does suggest that someone disapproved
of the marriage.