From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   (Wybunbury, Cheshire)   
      
   "_William Perry_ of _this_ Parish and _Ann Green_ of _this_ Parish were   
   married in this _Church_ by _Banns_ with Consent of _______ this   
   _second_ Day of _December_ in the Year One thousand eight hundred and   
   _twenty one_". (Bits shown _thus_ are handwritten on a line; the rest is   
   printed.)   
      
   Would I be right in thinking "by Banns" [is it always capitalized? If   
   so, why?], especially with nothing filled in after "with Consent of",   
   means they were both 21? (The "with Consent of" _isn't_ crossed out as   
   it often is, but is certainly left blank.)   
      
   They're my direct ancestors. Unfortunately, there are (via FindMyPast,   
   anyway) 36 Ann Greens baptised in Cheshire 1799 ±10 (chosen by 1821 less   
   12 gives 1809, so 1799 ±10 covers the 20 years before that), and even   
   applying fairly stringent distance limitations, too many to pick one   
   with any certainty. There _is_ one in Wybunbury itself, on 01 Mar 1801   
   (listed twice), but if the above 21 is right, she'd have been only 20 at   
   marriage, so that one couldn't have been her, unless she wasn't baptised   
   soon after birth as is the usual practice (yes I know not always).   
      
   JPG [if anyone else has these as ancestors of course do say!].   
   --   
      
      
   Petitions are still unfair. [Still need over 9000 signatures by 19 May )-:!]   
   https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 255soft.uk #fairpetitions   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   The Daily Mail has led the campaign to limit pornography - "it demeans and   
   belittles women," they explain, "and that's our job." (Sandi Toksvig   
   [scripted], News Quiz 2013-7-26.)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)