Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
I do not know, but it is possible, that the later marriage date of 1792 was for a rehabilitated marriage. That was sometimes done when the first marriage did not meet the laws of the RC Church, etc. You see that when the couples married in "exile" as it was called.
The couple had daughters marrying in 1792 and 1798 so it cannot be the original marriage date.
Chris
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:No followups yet |
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/forest/messages/647.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|