PDA

View Full Version : I am puzzled by this certificate



Muggins in Sussex
02-06-08, 22:25
It is the marriage certificate of the couple who may have been my grandparents

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o112/djangocrystal/BWWMCcroppped-1-1.jpg

I guess I am clutching at straws - looking for any clues! - but what puzzles me is that the whole of the certificate seems to have been written out in one hand, apart from the signatures of the witnesses, which are quite distinctively different - maybe the deputy superintendent registrar who wrote out the certificate just wanted to make it look authentic?

Merry Monty Montgomery
02-06-08, 22:37
lol!! Where did you get the cert from? The GRO or the local registerer office?

Uncle John
02-06-08, 22:39
You can normally tell when you have a scanned original rather than one that's been copied out. I think the normal practice is for the vicar to write the whole thing out in advance and then collect the signatures at the end of the wedding service. They have to use indelible ink which clogs up a fountain pen unless you clean it out straight away. So i think you may have genuine signatures. Frank and Beatrice do their small b's differently.

Muggins in Sussex
02-06-08, 22:40
From the local Register Office, Merry (and they were married by Superintendant Registrar's Certificate)

Olde Crone Holden
02-06-08, 22:44
Looks like a photocopy of an original cert to me. The signatures are all different.

OC

Merry Monty Montgomery
02-06-08, 22:45
In that case all the sigs should be the original ones (as that definitely doesn't look like modern-day handwriting)

Uncle John
02-06-08, 22:54
You lucky thing. The only ones I've had from local offices have been written out by the present-day registrar. I hope the info. gets you forward a little.

Muggins in Sussex
02-06-08, 22:55
That makes sense, OC and Merry - thanks - think I was looking for clues where none exist! LOL

Interesting that they didn't make enough room on the cert to write "by Superintendant Registrar's Certificate"

Cheers

Muggins in Sussex
02-06-08, 23:03
You lucky thing. The only ones I've had from local offices have been written out by the present-day registrar. I hope the info. gets you forward a little.


Thanks UJ - and if I ever get to the bottom of all this, I will organise a mega on-site party!

Cheers
J

Uncle John
02-06-08, 23:06
Interesting that they didn't make enough room on the cert to write "by Superintendant Registrar's Certificate"

What would normally go in that space is "Banns" or "Licence". Possibly one of the parties was resident elsewhere, so they had their intentions displayed at their local register office. I lived in outer London but was married in Scotland, so I needed to be certified. :D:D

KiteRunner
02-06-08, 23:09
I have quite a few that say "Certificate" in that space.

Uncle John
02-06-08, 23:11
Perhaps the vicar was a bit huffy about it not being banns and got his own back by spelling out the evil deed in full.

Muggins in Sussex
02-06-08, 23:13
Sorry to hear you were certified, UJ!!! LOL

The story in this case is that the vicar advised the bride-to-be not to proceed with the wedding - she disregarded his advice ( and probably ended up in a very unhappy relationshiip)

Peppie
02-06-08, 23:22
Book, book, book, book, book.........

Best seller......:):D

Olde Crone Holden
02-06-08, 23:24
I thought someone said recently on here that a Vicar of a parish church cannot REFUSE to marry a parishioner?

Where does the Superintendant Registrar come into this??? He has no jurisdiction over a Vicar, surely?

OC

Muggins in Sussex
02-06-08, 23:37
I simply don't know, OC !

All I know is that I have been told that the vicar advised Beatrice that she should not marry Frank, and that they were subsequently married by Superintendant Registrar's Certificate.

Margaret in Burton
02-06-08, 23:40
So perhaps the vicar refused to marry them so they married in the Register Office instead?

KiteRunner
02-06-08, 23:42
No, the marriage certificate says they were married in the church by the vicar - the "Superintendant Registrar's certificate" thing doesn't mean the actual marriage certificate, it means they had a certificate that said they were allowed to get married - similar to a marriage licence but different, um, I'm sure OC or somebody will explain the difference but I have to go to bed now...!

Muggins in Sussex
02-06-08, 23:48
Thanks, Margaret

But the top of the certificate says

"Marriage solomnized at St George's Parish Church in the Parish of Altrincham"

???
J

Margaret in Burton
02-06-08, 23:53
*slaps own wrist for not reading the thread properly*

Sorry:)

Muggins in Sussex
03-06-08, 00:00
Forgiven on this occasion, Margaret! ;)LOL

Thanks anyway

L
J

Little Nell
03-06-08, 00:45
(7) "By superintendent registrars certificate" is a very rare finding. It is issued for a Church of England marriage but instead of banns being called in the church, notice of marriage has been given to the superintendent registrar. In the early days this would be necessary where services were held so infrequently e.g. in a small chapel,that it was not possible to call the banns on three succesive Sundays and get married all within the three months time limit. Later on it was sometimes used as an expedient if for some reason the vicar did not want to make the forthcoming marriage in the church public knowledge and have the entry in his banns book which anyone can look at. The sort of problem might be where a bride and groom were of different persuasions and the vicar either didn't want the congregtion in general to know or even the bride/grooms family if he thought they might try to disrupt the ceremony. It is sometimes used these days when one of the couple is divorced and the vicar does not want it generally known that he is marrying a divorcee in his church.

source: Marriage Certificate Tutorials (http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/marriages.htm#COL9)

Olde Crone Holden
03-06-08, 00:56
Thanks Nell, saved me a job - I didn't have a clue about this, except that it is very rare.

Reading that explanation, the instigation would come from the VICAR - which kind of throws Muggins received information about the Vicar warning her not to marry, out of the window.....wonder if the story was covering up something else, like he was a divorcee, or ...or.... cannot really think of anything else! Oh, maybe her family would have tried to stop the wedding?

OC

Muggins in Sussex
03-06-08, 06:26
Thanks Nell & OC - the marriage was in 1905.

The idea that the bride's family would have tried to stop the wedding fits in a way, as the marriage seeems to have been rather a mis-match - she seems to have have come from a reasonable well educated family, and the groom was by all accounts a violent alcoholic.

Yet even that doesn't really fit -the bride's family all lived in Sheffield and the wedding took place in Altrincham, where all the groom's family lived ( the bride had moved to Altrincham to take up a live-in position as a cook). And yet the two witnesses at the service are the bride's brother and sister.

I haven't been able to find a previous marriage for the groom.

I'll have to get my thinking cap on again!....keep thinking I must be missing something obvious.

Incidentally the certificate is of the marriage of X's supposed parents - I keep hoping it holds a clue!!

Thanks again

Merry Monty Montgomery
03-06-08, 08:23
Maybe the family were not particularly against the marriage at the time, but with hindsight they didn't approve and one of the arguments given was "even the vicar told her not to go ahead".....this might have been based on the vicar "refusing" (or just not being happy) to marry them for some completely different reason - they then went for the sup reg cert and intended to marry in the register office or a non-conformist church, but then something cropped up that led to a change of plan and a C of E church wedding.

My gg-grandparents married by sup reg cert in 1849 in a C of E ceremony. I think they had intended to marry in a non-conformist church, but changed their minds (the church was a very busy one, so it wouldn't have been because banns could not be read). Their children were mainly Methodist in adulthood, but were all baptised into the C of E as a batch job when the youngest was a baby.

Mary from Italy
03-06-08, 09:57
I have one couple who married by Sup Reg certificate. They were Baptists, and she'd had a baby 4 years before they got married (he acknowledged paternity of the child in his will).

They lived together in a small village, but got married in a large town nearby. The village was so small that everyone must have known they were living together.

One contact suggested that they might have wanted to be married by the Baptist minister, but it couldn't be done legally without a Sup Reg Cert. Even so, it seems odd that they didn't get married in the village church.

Merry Monty Montgomery
03-06-08, 10:05
mary, do you mean they married in a Baptist church in the nearby town, or in the C of E in the nearby town?

Mary from Italy
03-06-08, 11:55
Sorry, they married in a C of E church in the nearby town.

This was in 1879.

Muggins in Sussex
03-06-08, 19:35
(7) "By superintendent registrars certificate" is a very rare finding. It is issued for a Church of England marriage but instead of banns being called in the church, notice of marriage has been given to the superintendent registrar. In the early days this would be necessary where services were held so infrequently e.g. in a small chapel,that it was not possible to call the banns on three succesive Sundays and get married all within the three months time limit. Later on it was sometimes used as an expedient if for some reason the vicar did not want to make the forthcoming marriage in the church public knowledge and have the entry in his banns book which anyone can look at. The sort of problem might be where a bride and groom were of different persuasions and the vicar either didn't want the congregtion in general to know or even the bride/grooms family if he thought they might try to disrupt the ceremony. It is sometimes used these days when one of the couple is divorced and the vicar does not want it generally known that he is marrying a divorcee in his church.

source: Marriage Certificate Tutorials (http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/marriages.htm#COL9)


Many thanks Nell

So presumably the decision that the wedding should be by Superintendent registrar's certificate would be the Vicar's? :confused:

And - a bit of a long shot, I guess - but presumably the Superintendent registrar's certificate would be an actual document - I just wondered where it might be and what it might contain?

BTW, the rumour in this case is that the Vicar dissapproved of the bride's choice of husband!

Keith Trotman14
03-06-08, 21:58
Dear Muggins, My greatgrand parents of which I have their marriage certificate dated 1860 could only mark their names with a cross as they could not write. Keith Trotman 14

Olde Crone Holden
03-06-08, 22:11
Keith

Don't assume they couldn't write just because they made their mark! People were far more obedient back then, and if the Vicar or Registrar said "Make your mark" they wouldn't argue with him and say "But I can write my name"

OC

Little Nell
03-06-08, 23:22
I have noticed that sometimes the groom could sign and not the bride and vice versa. After about 1870 everyone could sign.

Husband's Welsh lot show different trend. They are all more likely to be illiterate up to the 1890s, and they had children more frequently too.