Signature comparison

[Annad]

The first was to George Forrest in Chesterfield, Derbyshire and the second was Henry Nock in Staffordshire.

[arthurk]

Do you have any census returns to shed light on Mary, her parents and possible husband(s)? 1861, 1871 and 1881 could all be helpful.

[Annad]

I do have Mary Barnes on the 1851 and 1861 censuses. The family are from Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. The problem is that she vanishes before the 1871 census after marrying her first husband George in 1867, so I never have them together. Her second child dies in late 1870 and is buried in Newbold, Derbyshire where they live but there's no death record or burial for her despite George stating that he is a widower in 1871. He later lives with another woman but never remarries. I traced her back to Bilston, Staffs in 1871 and she is working as a domestic servant under her maiden name. In 1873 she has a child and then marries the father a year is so later. This is what happened with her first husband, child born first and married afterwards. I just can not think of a way to obtain actual proof that she is who I think she is, Thought the signatures might have helped.

[Fogmoose]

I agree there are some similarities, but my general feeling is that they are by different people. The "M" and the "r" in particular are different, but the second one looks much more fluent to me - a greater slope, and narrower and slightly less careful letters.

However, you say they are from "certificates", and assuming these are from England or Wales, these do not always include the original signatures of the parties being married. The circumstances I can think of where you would see the original signature on a certificate are:
1. it comes from a local register office which incorporates a photocopy of the register
2. it was issued at the time of the marriage where the minister allowed the couples to sign it themselves, rather than copying the signatures himself
3. it was issued by the GRO, and the minister had (very unusually) asked the couple to sign the quarterly return form that is used by the GRO to compile their indexes, and sometimes incorporated in certificates

Case 1 is fairly common, but in cases 2 and 3 you might not be able to find out whether it had happened or not, though you might sometimes suspect it if the writing is very different from the rest of the entry.

So, can you confirm that these are copies of the actual signatures in the register?

Arthur

This is very interesting. Can you elaborate more on this, I am especially interested in Scottish documents.  I was wondering,  sometimes you see where it says His or Her Mark with an X...obviously the person could not read or write. But its not nearly as often as you would expect... was the literacy rate really that good in 19th Century Britain? Many times when it says Signed followed with a signature, the signature looks very similar to the handwriting in the other entries on the page. Is it the actual persons signature, or just the registrar copying the original signed document? Thanks!

[Annad]

I can't give you a specific answer about Scottish certificates, other people may have more information about them. I can only go by my own experience but I do know that the certificates from the GRO are just copies written out by someone else and this includes all of the signatures. I already had both marriage certificates for Mary Barnes from the GRO so had to obtain the original church copies which include the actual signatures of all involved. Literacy seemed to vary. Mary signed both her marriage certificates but neither of her husbands were literate.


Thanks for your help everyone

[arthurk]

Like Annad, I don't know exactly how and when Scottish marriages were/are reported to the GRO(S), but I do know that the official marriage registers are kept by the local registrars rather than churches, so sometimes it's apparent from the dates that a couple went to register a marriage a few days after it had actually taken place. In England and Wales, registration takes place at the same time as the ceremony.

The question about the paperwork behind certificates comes up from time to time. Rather than write it all out again, can I refer you to my post at http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=731638.msg5766000#msg5766000 - the whole thread gives the context for the first part of my reply, but my points (a) (b) and (c) are what you are asking about now.

Searching the forum for "quarterly return" brings up more results as well.

Arthur

[Annad]

Just in case anyone is thinking of getting the original copies of their ancestors marriage certificates, my experience is that it's cheaper to get them from the local record office that holds parish records. I enquired about the cost of the certificate from the Registrars Office and they quoted £25 and for this I would get another certificate written by someone else plus a photocopy of the original. I decided rather than pay that much I'd request a photocopy of the church copy of the certificate which obviously has the original signatures and at at least half the cost. I believe though that prices differ depending on which Registrars Office you need.

Anna

[Treetotal]

I have my doubts that they were written by the same hand.
Carol