I need help naming an English Quaker meeting.

Question

What would be the correct category for the 17th century English Quaker meeting in Nottingham? Was it in Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire?

The naming convention is here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:Quakers#English_Meetings

Comments

I know nothing about Quaker marriage custom (nor categories)  but what seems to be the actual marriage was recorded in Nottingham

They seem to have declared their intention to marry  in  Chesterfield which is in Derbyshire . This is recorded on  the 9th day of the 9th month 1682 (that I think was actually November 1682 :Julian calendar)

It is recorded in the Monthly Meeting of Chesterfield  1669-1765

Piece 1487

General Register Office: Society of Friends' Registers, Notes and Certificates of Births, Marriages and Burials. GRO, OPCS,RG 6. The National Archives, Kew,  viewed on Ancestry UK

 

The marriage took  place  at the quarterly meeting of the Derbyshire/Nottingham meetings  held at  Nottingham (Nottinghamshire) on the 28th day of the 11th month 1682  ( I think  that would have been 2 months later in January 1682/3 rather than November as in the profile.)

 It says that Edward Carthlidge of Riddings in the county of Derbyshire and Mary Need of Arnold[?] in the county of Nottingham 'having declared their intention to joyne in Marriage at severall meetings of the peoples of God and all things being clear, they have the day and year above said been joyned in marriage at a publique meeting of the people of God at Nottingham...'

Piece 1368 quarterly meeting of  Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire  1664-1754 (RG6 as above)

---

Thank you, Helen! Quite a lot of info to add to the bio!  I am hoping a someone will come along and help me format the meeting name(s).

Answer 1

Your original question was "What would be the correct category for the 17th century English Quaker meeting in Nottingham?"

There was a Nottinghamshire Quarterly Meeting, which would be:
Category:Nottinghamshire Quarterly Quaker Meeting, Nottinghamshire

Based on Helen's information, I did a little digging around and found this: https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/8249

This research document has a bit on the history of the monthly meetings in that area, including the Chesterfield Monthly Meeting.

It would appear that the proper category for the intent to marry would be as it is specifically documented there, not the Derbyshire Monthly Meeting.

Category:Chesterfield Monthly Quaker Meeting, Derbyshire

The marriage itself was at the quarterly meeting, since this was prior to 1761, based on this research, the marriage should be categorized there.

Category:Derbyshire Quarterly Quaker Meeting, Derbyshire

I would argue that there should be a Derbyshire category first.

Category:Derbyshire Quakers

And the other categories should be placed under this category as there is potential for a number of Derbyshire meetings.

Now it isn't clear to me, based on what Helen added, where the marriage occurred. According the the research mentioned above, Derbyshire Quarterly Meeting and Nottinghamshire Quarterly meeting did not amalgamate until 1761, so they would have been separate meetings. You probably need to see the actual record source to determine where the marriage was held.

Comments

I'm not sure why the project has "Quaker" in the category naming recommendations for England as opposed to the US and it seems not everyone is following this suggestion, but I kept that in the name to follow the recommendation.

---

That was helpful, Allison. I definitely want to follow the guidelines.

---

I edited to change Nottingham Quarterly ... to Nottinghamshire Quarterly ...

Just a typo.

Let me know if you need help actually creating the categories.

---

These are copies, not original registers.  The weddings are all at different places and the signatures are all in the same handwriting.

English custom is that weddings can't be held behind closed doors.  Since the wording emphasizes "public" meeting, I'd imagine it was a "meeting" specifically held for the purpose, ie just a wedding.  Probably not all the guests were Quakers.  It wouldn't need to be at a normal meeting house.

The wording deliberately avoids putting it under the auspices of any particular Monthly or Quarterly Meeting and doesn't even say who the MC was - nobody signs as the celebrant.  All in line with Quaker thinking that they didn't need anything resembling churches or priests.

---

Thanks, RJ. I haven't got it sorted yet.