Accuracy of marriage records

[coombs]

Dave Annal also explains that only a small percentage of births went unregistered 1837 to 1874. However that still accounts for several hundred thousand births unregistered inbetween 1837 and 1874. I have 2 direct ancestors and a few ancestor siblings whose births did not seem to be registered, both in Essex and Co Durham.

The percentage of unregistered births is more like maybe 2 to 3% 1837-1874.

[Lavender13]

But if the information may be inaccurate then I will not take it as fact.

As most of the details on a certificate are answers to a recorder's questions, some of which may have been asked in various ways or not at all, a good deal of them should not be 'taken as fact' in a strict sense.  In my wife's tree is a man who married twice about 5 years apart, and was apparently younger the second time than the first - probably because the first marriage was to a noticeably older widow who reduced her age while he augmented his.  And we all know about variable surnames : I have seen a certificate for a lady named Heywood who quite clearly signed herself Hayward.

I generally never take anything as fact until I can back it up with sources but I just wasn't sure. Ky ancestor wasn't actually married to the mother of his children so I have no marriage certificate to go on either and only a poor law record to confirm he is the father of the girls so I was hoping for anything that would further the information I know about him. He is a difficult man to track.

[Lavender13]

I have an ancestor who died in 1831 and his children wed in 1845 and 1856 and said the father's name and occupation, and not if he was deceased or not. The registrar may never have asked, or even if told they maybe thought "too much info, just put name and occupation".

Yes I think it just comes down to the registrar really and also what the children choose to say. I've had ancestors say all sorts of things on marriage certificates that weren't true, so it can be hard to sus out what the truth actually is.