Accuracy of marriage records

[Lavender13]

 I have an ancestor who I am looking for and information on his
youngest daughter's marriage certificate doesn't quite match up with his other Daughters' marriage certificates.  Its not too far apart though. From what i know, he was a quay Labourer/Dock Labourer, but this daughter lists him as a Seaman.

He is also not listed as deceased on the marriage certificate. Does that mean he is alive or just that they dont know?

I'm not sure how to find information about how these things worked. Like who usually gave the information about parents? Did they have to go to a registry office to file the info or was it filled out on the day of the marriage?

I know that in other ancestors of mines records, the parents names have been wrong, people have been listed as deceased when they were alive, and things like that, so I guess I'm just wondering what the process was like and how far I could trust this information.

I'm also curious is there a minimum age for witnesses to a marriage? Were witnesses usually only family members, or could they be anyone like a friend or a neighbor?

Oh this was an English marriage certificate but my ancestor and his daughter were Scottish.

[goldie61]

It's not unusual for information on different sources to differ.
Different peoples' knowledge, memories, or 'agenda' could differ quite a lot.
Ages can vary, as can occupations.
It was not compulsory to state whether a father was deceased or not. This question may not have been asked by the person officiating when the marriage certificate was written.

Prior to 1837, nobody had a birth or marriage certificate, so very often people were unsure of exactly when they were born, or indeed where they were born. If a family had some 6 or 8 children or so, and you couldn't write, it would have been somewhat difficult to remember all those birthdates, and if you moved around to find work, you may have got mixed up about where each one was born.

I don't think there was a minimum age for a witness at a marriage.
They did not need to be a family member. Very often they were friends or neighbours. You will often find the same person witnesses many marriages at a particular church - these may have been a churchwarden, the curate, or even the sexton.  You could ask somebody passing by the door of the church to be your witness if you didn't have any.

[Lavender13]

Thanks so much for a lengthy and detailed response, I appreciate it.

That makes a lot of sense. I know literacy rates were poor back then, especially for the working class, to its understandable how that would complicate things, especially with it not being compulsory to record births until 1855.

I was hoping to narrow down the death range of my 4x gg using his daughter's marriage certificate. But if the information may be inaccurate then I will not take it as fact.

Thanks so much for your insight

[Andrew Tarr]

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.

[goldie61]

  it not being compulsory to record births until 1855.

Yes 1855 in Scotland, 1837 in England.

[martin hooper]

I am under the impression that although civil birth registration started in 1837, it didn't become compulsory by law until 1875. Am I wrong?

Martin

[coombs]

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".

[KGarrad]

I am under the impression that although civil birth registration started in 1837, it didn't become compulsory by law until 1875. Am I wrong?

Martin

Until 1875, the onus was on the Registrar to find and record births and deaths.
From1875, the onus was on the parents (for Births), or informant (for Deaths).

[Andy J2022]

I am under the impression that although civil birth registration started in 1837, it didn't become compulsory by law until 1875. Am I wrong?

Martin

Dave Annal explains why this not true in this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNj-4eY2d8