Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?  (Read 2632 times)

Offline GeneCat

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« on: Friday 09 October 15 21:11 BST (UK) »
Does anyone have a general idea about how common it was for a couple to NOT get married in a church back in the 1840s?

I've just obtained a marriage certificate from 1844, district of Lincoln Union. It says the marriage was solemnised at the superintendent registrars office. With all the certificates I've obtained over the years this is the first time I've found ancestors that were not married in a church. The bride had been baptised. The groom I'm not sure about as never found his birth. But what would the likely reason be for not marrying in a church?

 :) Thanks in advance for any replies!

Offline StanleysChesterton

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
  • My G-grandmother on right, 1955
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #1 on: Friday 09 October 15 21:13 BST (UK) »
Lots of reasons, they could be of different religions, so the bride's preferred church wouldn't do it.
Or there might've been date clashes/issues, so rather than waiting until the church could fit them in they just did it.

Were they both from that area?  My lot've been born/married/buried mostly in the same village, at the same church - but if anybody's out of their area, or move around a lot, I guess it's easier to see how they might not go to the local church as the first port of call.
Related to: Lots of people!
:)
Mostly Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, some Kent and Dorset.
 
Elizabeth Long/Elizabeth Wilson/Elizabeth Long Wilson, b 1889 Caxton - where are you?
- -
Seeking: death year/location of Albert Edward Morgan, born Cambridge 1885/86 to Hannah & Edward Morgan of 33 Cambridge Place.
WW1 soldier, service number 8624, 2nd battalion, Highland Light Infantry.

Offline GeneCat

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #2 on: Friday 09 October 15 21:18 BST (UK) »
Well they were both from small neighbouring villages, but at the time of the wedding they were both resident in the same little place of Aubourn, Lincoln.  They did move around a lot after marriage and were very poor as in and out of the workhouse for the next 20 years.

Seems obvious now you say it about being differing religions. Something new to ponder!

Thanks for the reply Stanleys :)

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #3 on: Friday 09 October 15 21:39 BST (UK) »
These are the numbers of marriages in churches and register offices from 1841 to 1864.
Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline GeneCat

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #4 on: Friday 09 October 15 21:42 BST (UK) »
Oh wow, thanks Stan. Exactly what I was looking for. Curiousity regarding how usual/unusual is satisfied now!!  ;D

Offline pinefamily

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,810
  • Big sister with baby brother
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #5 on: Friday 09 October 15 23:21 BST (UK) »
Another reason to consider is how soon after the marriage was their first child born?
I am Australian, from all the lands I come (my ancestors, at least!)

Pine/Pyne, Dowdeswell, Kempster, Sando/Sandoe/Sandow, Nancarrow, Hounslow, Youatt, Richardson, Jarmyn, Oxlade, Coad, Kelsey, Crampton, Lindner, Pittaway, and too many others to name.
Devon, Dorset, Gloucs, Cornwall, Warwickshire, Bucks, Oxfordshire, Wilts, Germany, Sweden, and of course London, to name a few.

Offline GeneCat

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #6 on: Friday 09 October 15 23:24 BST (UK) »
Hi Pine. Yes good idea. I already looked at that. First child was year later.  8)

Offline pinefamily

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,810
  • Big sister with baby brother
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #7 on: Friday 09 October 15 23:28 BST (UK) »
Well that's one to rule out. Possibly different religions, or as you mentioned possibly the groom wasn't baptised. Some ministers were stricter than others.
I am Australian, from all the lands I come (my ancestors, at least!)

Pine/Pyne, Dowdeswell, Kempster, Sando/Sandoe/Sandow, Nancarrow, Hounslow, Youatt, Richardson, Jarmyn, Oxlade, Coad, Kelsey, Crampton, Lindner, Pittaway, and too many others to name.
Devon, Dorset, Gloucs, Cornwall, Warwickshire, Bucks, Oxfordshire, Wilts, Germany, Sweden, and of course London, to name a few.

Offline GeneCat

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: 1840s registry office wedding - Unusual or not?
« Reply #8 on: Friday 09 October 15 23:34 BST (UK) »
It's interesting. Even if he wasn't baptised it then leads onto why not. I'm just guessing but that would be unusual, I would think, back then.

Just searching for him, yet again, on the 1841 census. No luck so far. He'll turn up when I least expect it. lol.   :)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4