Odd marriage certificate

[Jeuel]

The mark (or signature, for those who could write) was equally important for men and women.  I have come across a lot of instances where the brides could sign their names but their husbands couldn't.  I've assumed that maybe girls got a bit more schooling whereas boys would be off working asap.

[Redroger]

During my researches I have found several instances at a variety of parishes where church wardens etc. seem to have acted almost as "professional witnesses" their names appearing several times per page in the registers.

[stanmapstone]

The mark (or signature, for those who could write) was equally important for men and women.  I have come across a lot of instances where the brides could sign their names but their husbands couldn't.  I've assumed that maybe girls got a bit more schooling whereas boys would be off working asap.

Recent historical research has confirmed that there appears to be a rough correlation between the proportions in a locality of those basically literate, as measured by marriage signatures, and the proportions previously at school there (Stephens, 267). Lister further observed on the basis of the marriage returns, that men were more literate than women, and that literacy rates varied by region, being highest in the Metropolis and lowest in Wales and Bedfordshire http://www.rootschat.com/links/03ix/

Stan

[dee-jay]

During my researches I have found several instances at a variety of parishes where church wardens etc. seem to have acted almost as "professional witnesses" their names appearing several times per page in the registers. 

For this very reason I invested in a number of PRs on microfiche for my West Country ancestors so that I could study them in depth at home.  I could never accomplish so much within time constraints of visits to CROs many miles distant.  Also, with a rapid turnover in incumbents in some of the parishes in which I have interests, I found it essential to study the entries in context with their contemporaries.

In spite of perfectly formed signatures, some 18th century marriage records distort surnames in perpetuity:  who better to know how to spell their name than those who actually signed them?  Many post-1837 PR entries have signatures that do not correspond with the surnames as entered in the relevant slots and it's quite amazing to find variations in certificates obtained from the GRO and those issued by a local Superintendent Registrar and/or viewed in the original register.

The best age-related anomaly I've encountered recorded 'spinster of the age of twenty one years' in 1834 for the bride, married by licence.  From her age in 1851 Census (81) , confirmed by her baptism (1771) and burial details, it was evident that she married at the age of 63 or thereabouts!

[majm]

During my researches I have found several instances at a variety of parishes where church wardens etc. seem to have acted almost as "professional witnesses" their names appearing several times per page in the registers.

I wonder if that is suggesting the bride and/or the groom were regulars and those 'professional witnesses' were simply there as the 'credible' witnesses that Stan has mentioned.   

I have noticed many apparent anomalies between the civil registration records and the parish registers. 

In my instances these discrepencies are in New South Wales, Australia, and the differences are between the NSW BDM holdings for marriages and the actual Church registers upon which NSW BDM based their 19thCentury holdings.   NSW BDM was formally established in the 1850s, however it took well into the 1880s for the various denominations to provide summary reports on marriages celebrated by their clergys.   

It took until 1895 for the disputes (Church v State) to resolve many many issues.   Consequently there are many blanks on NSW BDM issued marriage certs for the years 1856 - 1895.   For example, the names of the parents of the bride and the groom are often NOT recorded on the civil registrations.   These are of course found on the parish registers.   Another example is the ages of the bride and the groom are often missing from those civil registrations, and the ages are, of course, usually found on the parish registers.   


BUT sometimes even the NSW parish registers do NOT include those details.  This is usually for marriages PRE the NSW BDM civil registration era commenced.   HOWEVER, sometimes even after the civil registration era commenced, the parish registers for some of the clergy seem to indicate "marriage shops" and very limited details are obtained from those registers.  It is not limited to any particular denomination, rather it is limited (at least from my research) to the manners and practices of particular clergymen, and their own understanding of what minimal information they could provide to the secular authorities. 

I understand that other British Colonies (both in Australia and elsewhere) have similar difficulties with some of their 19thC marriage records.

Cheers,  JM   

[Colin Cruddace]

My personal view is that the couple arranged the marriage with their local encumbent, and if he had no reason to dispute the details given, would publish the Banns on 3 successive Sundays, giving the local congregation the opportunity to raise objections.

I think it is likely that communities turned a blind eye to many events, and were sympathetic to the circumstances, so raised no objections and were honour bound to forever hold their peace.

Colin

[Ruskie]

Sometimes those who signed may not have been literate - maybe they just learned to write their own name (and very little else). You may come across some signatures written in a very unconfident hand.
I believe the opposite can also be true - some literate folks maybe felt unoverwhelmed on such a formal occassion and simply opted to make their mark.

[Ruskie]

In spite of perfectly formed signatures, some 18th century marriage records distort surnames in perpetuity:  who better to know how to spell their name than those who actually signed them? 

Are you sure about this? I always believed that spelling was not as important then as it is today. I also imagine that on many formal documents, they were simply filled in without any checks. Even if the bride/groom were literate, would they have asked to see, or been offered, the official document to check that spellings were correct? I doubt it ....

Of course it still happens today - names are misspelled.

[robbo43]

Are you sure about this? I always believed that spelling was not as important then as it is today. I also imagine that on many formal documents, they were simply filled in without any checks. Even if the bride/groom were literate, would they have asked to see, or been offered, the official document to check that spellings were correct? I doubt it ....

Of course it still happens today - names are misspelled.

I've come to believe exactly the opposite, that my literate ancestors knew exactly how to spell their name and that the misspellings and spelling variations came from the clergyman or the parish clerk. The fact that the family did not get to see the record is the reason that they couldn't get the mistakes corrected.

My Norfolk Davey family always spelled their name that way but usually go down incorrectly  in parish registers as Davy, and you should see the ways that incomer clergymen didn't cope with the Norfolk pronunciation of Amos.  My grandfather's middle name was Rignold and he was forever fighting with officialdom to stop it being "corrected" to Reginald.  Believe your family not officialdom.

Robert