Need help interpreting French Marriage Record - Nicolas Choquet

Question

I have found the marriage record of Nicolas Choquet and Claudine Groet, the parents of Carignan-Salière Regiment soldier Nicolas Choquet who married Fille de Roi, Anne Julien.    I can read enough of it to be sure it is the right marriage record, but I could use some help interpreting part of it.

Archives départementales de la Somme, REGISTRES PAROISSIAUX ET DE L'ÉTAT CIVIL DU DÉPARTEMENT DE LA SOMME, Amiens (paroisse Saint-Leu) : baptêmes, mariages, sépultures 1559-1642, image 412 of 913, left side, fourth entry under May 1632, marriage of Nicolas Choquet and Claudine Godoet, (https://recherche.archives.somme.fr/ark:/58483/a011261413210mUtVie/1/1 : accessed 12 Sep 2020)

The link will take you to the first page of the film and then you have to use the viewer to move to image 412.

In the left column, I'm not sure, but I think it may be recording the reading of the bans and then the date of the actual marriage ceremony.  Can anyone confirm for me what it says in the left column? 

There is also a notation above Claudine's name that I think says St-Germain, which is another parish in Amiens where several family members were also baptized.  I think it means one or both parties were residents of the parish of St-Germain.  Any thoughts?

Comments

interesting, looks more like an accounting of payments received than an actual marriage record, since there are only the names, no ceremony text.

---

Yes, that's also my impression. I imagine those entries were created when the priest was informed of the planned marriage, and vertical bars added each time one bann was published. The actual record was written in a different register on the day of the ceremony, and that register was lost (there was no double copy at the time).

One possibility is that the marriage took place in Saint-Germain (parish of the bride), and only banns in Saint-Leu (parish of the groom). But unfortunately records for 1632 seem to be lost for Saint-Germain too.

---

Even if its not the actual marriage record, it is at least evidence of the marriage and its approximate date and approximate location which is more than we had previously had.   It is also several years earlier than had previously been estimated and thus suggests that this Nicolas was likely a few years older than had earlier been estimated.  So, I'm going to broaden my search for the groom's baptismal record and look in all the parishes in Amiens from around 1600 to 1617 (when we found the baptismal record of his next sibling.)  Maybe I'll find something more.

---

oh, you are a patient woman Mary, hope you find something, that early is going to be arduous.

---

Nicolas Choquet is not an uncommon name. As mentioned on his profile, baptism records were found in 1615, 1618 and 1620, and you will probably find more looking at earlier dates. Without any knowledge of his parents' names, I fear it will be impossible to know which one is the right one.

---

I have parent names that I am looking for.  His mother was supposedly Jean Chastel and his father was supposedly also Nicolas Choquet.  And I have a hint that his father was known as Nicolas the Merchant.  So I'm guessing that was an occupation that may help me confirm whether I have the right one.

Even so and even if I find records with those parents, I'll have to put in notes of possible uncertainty as the marriage evidence I found does not name parents which makes it harder to determine whether you have the right baptismal record.

But the wife's name is not quite so common.

---

Danielle, I am patient.  I put aside my husband's Danish tree for 2 decades until more US immigration records and  Danish records were available online because I could not figure out which of five towns named Lyngby in Denmark he was from.  This kind of stuff is what you do on long cold winter days and nights when you all you want to do is bundle and snuggle in place.  But I'm surprised at how good these images are in the archives of the department.  They appear to be in much better shape than the old Crevier records in Rouen.

Answer 1

I believe the left column records not dates, but the amounts the priest received for publishing the banns and performing the marriage. In most cases the amount recorded "pour les banns" is "15 sol" - i.e., 15 sous, in Latin 15 solidi (equivalent to 15 shillings in the British system). In the first entry for May 1632 the amount is "12 sol 4 d" - i.e., 12 solidi, 4 denarii (12 shillings 4 pence in the British system). On the right-hand side of the page the abbreviation has been reduced from sol. to s. (which is also familiar as the abbreviation of shilling in the British system).

Comments

Thank you so much.  I never thought of that possibility.

---

I agree, can't see any dates beyond year and month. It looks like clerk ticked the banns at the right of the page.

I would also agree with your interpretation that St-Germain would be the parish of origin. There are a few similar notations in other marriages on the page.

Can't be definitive though as every clerk had his way of doing things back then - as long as the marriage was recorded, it was fine. In doubt, every notation is good to preserve as a clue.