1800/early 1900 marriage certs

[tezzer]

during the 1800s/early 1900s like today happy couples and witnesses had to sign the register book in the church. but as far as i can find out a copy had to be given to the local register office. does this mean that early copies of wedding certs actually have copies of signatures on them rather than the real signature. For quite a number of years Ive been stuck looking for a connection between two parts of my family, Ive recently come across a few wedding certs on line containing signatures. Which i have started to compare, but it dawned on me these my be just copies of signatures
does any one know the answer please 
 

[stanmapstone]

When you get married in church there are three books. Two marriage registers, one for the Church Records, and one subsequently sent, when full, to the local Register Office, these are signed by the couple and the witnesses, the third book is the marriage certificate, filled in by the vicar as a certified copy, and given to the couple, they should all have the same details.In addition to these books are the forms filled in for the quarterly certified returns. The local register office keeps the second register, when full, with the original signatures. The Register Office then sends a copy to the General Register Office, the quarterly certified returns, which is what you get if you apply for one. Some local register offices can supply a copy wth the original signatures, and the church has one with the original signatures.

Stan

[tezzer]

thanks Stan would that have applied back then as well?

[stanmapstone]

It has always applied from the Act for registering Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England. [17 August 1836] Sections XXXIII and  XXXIV http://www.rootschat.com/links/0mvp/


Stan

[tezzer]

thanks for that Stan ...ill go back to comparing my signature's in the knowledge that they are legitimate signature's

[AntonyMMM]

It is important to understand the difference between the register (an original document) and a certificate ( a certified copy of the register) ...

If you are looking at an image of the marriage register ( and for most church weddings there are two as Stan says)  - then it should have the signatures of the parties.

if you are looking at a marriage certificate - then it shouldn't.

But there are exceptions - a registration office could produce a certificate by photocopying the register entry (rather then just copying it out), which would then show the signatures,  or a vicar at a church wedding may get the parties to sign the certificates, as well as the registers, which shouldn't happen, but certainly did at my own wedding.

As a registrar I officiated at quite a number of civil weddings and not a single certificate I issued was signed by those getting married.

[stanmapstone]

Sunderland local Register Office have always provided me with photocopies of the original marriage certificate, with the original signatures.
This is what the Sunderland Registrars say;
"With all family history marriage applications we try to offer a photocopy of the original entry onto a certificate, the only time that this is not possible is if the entry has an error/correction in it which means we have to handwrite the certificate."

Stan

[AntonyMMM]

That's good to hear Stan - although not something many offices will do without a special request and sometimes a lot of persuasion.

Marriages are easier to do by photocopying than birth/deaths though because of the page sizes (and only two on a page).

[tezzer]

that's interesting I'm actually comparing signatures from copy's of the registers on ancestry so i would guess they are authentic, but as a result of my research i have brought quite a number of different certs including marriage certs from the GRO, which i had assumed where a proper photo copy of the original