Odd marriage certificate

[Liv46]

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on a rather odd looking marriage certificate of some ancestors of mine who were married in 1842 in Bridgwater...

For both their ages "full age" is simply written and there is a line through BOTH of their "father's name/surname" and "rank/profession of father" boxes. Neither of the witnesses at the wedding appear to be family members.

Someone else who I have been in contact with who is researching the same family says that she thinks the father of the groom was alive at the time and that the groom was not illegitimate, so it seems unlikely that the groom's father as well as the bride's father had died or that both bride and groom were illegitimate.

The fact that the witnesses don't appear to be relations has made me wonder if the couple eloped or that it was some kind of disapproved of marriage. Anyone have any thoughts?

[Craclyn]

Do you have any census info indicating what their actual ages were at the time of the marriage. That might give some insight into whether they ran off without parental permission.

[stanmapstone]

The law required two or more credible witnesses, and (the advice to the clergy was) these should, whenever practible be the relatives or friends of the parties, who would be able to testify afterwards to the identity of the persons from personal knowledge or recollection. So they could have just been friends.

Stan

[Liv46]

Census information indicates that they were both born in about 1822. I'm sure Stan is probably correct in that the witnesses were friends of theirs (although interesting that the law was so specific about who the witnesses should be- I never knew that!), I just wonder why they declined to give their ages and information about their fathers

[dee-jay]

There are a few questions, answers to which could provide clues that might assist a satisfactory explanation:

1.  Was the marriage performed in the established Anglican Church or a Chapel?

2.  Have all the parties thereto been traced subsequently as Bridgwater 'locals' or from out-of-area, and did they provide signatures or marks?

3.  Was the marriage by Banns or by Licence?

Ideally, the marriage entry needs to be seen in the context of others of close date in the register, as there were often 'regulars' who witnessed many ceremonies, either as members of the congregation or churchwardens etc.

I found a block of marriages in one chapel where it became obvious, from variations in the manner of recording entries for siblings born within a marriage, that successive 'Authorised Persons' were unsure how it should be done!  Therefore, I think it unsafe to assume that all parties with an unnamed father - whether or not  recorded ‘Deceased’ - were illegitimate.

[Ruskie]

Just because "full age" is written does not mean that they refused to give their exact age, simply that they were (or claimed to be) 21 or older.

[majm]

Hi there

We don't actually know the couple declined to give any details.  We only know the information that the clergyman recorded on the Parish register.  Different clergy within same denomination recorded minimal info according to the Church Laws applicable at the time and of course their own understanding of those laws. 

So sometimes we may think the parties with-held information but perhaps the clergy officiating simply did not note those details on the pre-printed register available to him ... 

I am sure the clergy were responsible for confirming the couple were eligible to marry each other ... full age is simply indicating that the clergyman had informed himself they were both at least 21 so they could give their own individual consent and not need a parent or guardian to represent that authority to enter into a marriage contract.  The clergy would have asked them also about their status ... bachelor/spinster or otherwise free to marry ....

Cheers JM.

Census information indicates that they were both born in about 1822. I'm sure Stan is probably correct in that the witnesses were friends of theirs (although interesting that the law was so specific about who the witnesses should be- I never knew that!), I just wonder why they declined to give their ages and information about their fathers

[stanmapstone]

Census information indicates that they were both born in about 1822. I'm sure Stan is probably correct in that the witnesses were friends of theirs (although interesting that the law was so specific about who the witnesses should be- I never knew that!),

I should have made clear that it was not the law but the advice given to the clergy.  The relevant  Acts  do not say "two or more witnesses" but "two or more credible witnesses" without defining what a 'credible' witness was.

Stan

[Liv46]

They were married in St Mary's Church, Bridgwater, after banns by a J Wollen, and were both born in the surrounding area (where they lived for a number of years after they were married). I presumed that the lack of information on the certificate indicated that they did not know or wouldn't give the information, but I suppose actually, as JM says, it's just as likely that the person who was responsible for recording the information just didn't take that information down.

The groom has "X his mark" after his name at the bottom of the certificate but the bride doesn't (it just has her name). I presume that the "X his mark" indicates that he was illiterate so unable to sign his name, but out of interest, would the lack of an "X her mark" by the bride's name indicate that she could write, or would her 'mark' not have been as important as his (sorry if this is an obvious question, I am fairly new to genealogy!)?

Thanks for all your help btw!