Choice of marriage witnesses

[Liberty]

I have been noticing a trend in the choice of witnesses at the marriages of my 19c relatives. Quite often the witnesses are (as you might expect) the respective fathers, but in a surprisingly large number of instances the witnesses are a sibling and his/her future spouse. This is fantastic for confirming I have the right people identified, but it set me wondering - was there some sort of superstition about it? You know how the girl who catches the bride's bouquet will supposedly be the next married? was there some 'belief' that being witnesses would ensure the wedding of the next couple? Was it a compliment, did it bring good luck to either couple? It certainly doesn't seem to be cases of clandestine marriages, attended only by a sympathetic brother and his girlfriend, as the practice (Suffolk and Norfolk) is quite common. Has anyone else met this?

 

[Tim]

I have seen more brothers and sisters being witnesses rather than the father, quite often the father is noted as being deceased.

Sometimes with their future partner and sometimes with their spouse.

 

[pjd]

Siblings are often marriage witnesses in my tree too - very useful in confirming identities (especially with my Smith ancestors!)
I also have instances of a sibling & future spouse being witnesses, also neighbours occasionally

 

[peter]

These days we're used to large weddings, mostly on Saturdays - but in the 19th century people worked 6 days a week, so I would imagine most weddings were sparsely attended. Indeed you'll sometimes see consecutive weddings on the same day where the couple for the couples act as witnesses for each other. (Sometimes the bride in the first wedding inadvertently signs in her maiden name when witnessing the second marriage.)

 

[Tim]

I've also seen some entries where 5 or 6 consecutive marriages have 1 or both of the same witnesses. I just assumed they were people to do with the church.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

In Scotland you have always needed a minimum of two witnesses, these were typically the eldest unmarried brother of the groom and the eldest unmarried sister of the bride. Naturally a large number of times this wasn't possible as there was no such sibling. Also it's not a hard and fast rule. I'd understood that these witnesses were also the best man and maid of honour. Nothing other than hearsay of course.

 

[peter]

I've also seen some entries where 5 or 6 consecutive marriages have 1 or both of the same witnesses. I just assumed they were people to do with the church.

That does seem to be the case, and it suggests that sometimes the happy couple were there on their own (though no doubt in some cases it will be because the other attendees couldn't sign their name).

 

[Britjan]

Having somebody I am searching for on FreeReg turn up as a witness rather than the bride or groom is always very useful and sometimes points me in the direction of a sibling I have missed in pre-census days. I had one person show up as a witness to more weddings than I thought was likely from his possible relationship to the bride and groom until I came across a record from another source showing he was the sexton for the church.

 

[Liberty]

Thanks for the input to this, guys.

I have all sorts of patterns (and non-patterns to my witnesses). In a couple of large families I have 'reciprocal witnessing', where one couple are witnesses at a wedding and later the first bride and groom are witnesses for the second couple. I have 'chains', where the next youngest sister of the bride is a witness, so it passes down the line of girls (rather as Alexander comments). I have the same name recurring as a witness (at first I was looking for family link, then decided he was the chap always hanging round the church who'd be a witness for half-a-crown). One passing observation is that I have noticed that often an unmarried couple were witnesses 2 or 3 years before their own wedding, suggesting the relationship was serious for quite some time (e.g. a long engagement)

Perhaps a Useful Hint to new family searchers is 'Don't overlook the witnesses'.

 

[Tim]

Does anyone capture witnesses as Facts in their trees? If yes, did you create a custom Fact, what sort of info do you capture?

 

[MarionK]

Does anyone capture witnesses as Facts in their trees? If yes, did you create a custom Fact, what sort of info do you capture?

Yes, I do. My FH program (The Master Genealogist) allows witnesses to be 'attached' to events. A marriage where one of my family members was a witness will show as an event in the 'Person View' of the witness. Very handy, sometimes! I do this with marriages, census, wills and anything else where multiple people are involved in the 'event'.

 

[peter]

Witnesses are incredibly important - if it hadn't been for a marriage witness (with a signature I couldn't read) I might never have pieced together my London Smith line.

 

[Bryman]

Does anyone capture witnesses as Facts in their trees? If yes, did you create a custom Fact, what sort of info do you capture?

Yes, I do but don't have many yet.
GenoPro provides a standard field for recording just the names, along with the name and title of the person conducting the marriage. I record the information when I find it, just because the field is there. If it is an odd fact for which I have no specific field then I add a note, with reference, so that it does not get lost.

*** I have learned to record everything when I find it as it is such a big job to go back and add that information later. ***

I have not yet gone on to follow up and see how the witnesses might be related, other than where they are obviously immediate family. I am saving that for a 'rainy' day when there is nothing more important to do.

 

[Susan48]

Witnesses are incredibly important

The Essex Society for Family History CDs of the Colchester Parish Registers indexes names of witnesses as well as of bride and groom, which is a useful bonus.

 

[Liberty]

Witnesses are incredibly important

The Essex Society for Family History CDs of the Colchester Parish Registers indexes names of witnesses as well as of bride and groom, which is a useful bonus.

FreeReg includes witnesses when you search for name. That is, if you search for Christopher Marjoram (as I do) it will include cases where he has been a groom, a father of bride/groom or witness (as well as instances where a Christopher X appears in the same record as X Marjoram). Familysearch seems to ignore witnesses, which is shame.

 

[emjay]

I record them in notes, then find myself investigating them. I do have to stop myself from going too far though when they are not
related to bride or groom. Having said that, it can be fruitful (and always interesting in any case).

 

[Tim]

I'm thinking of recording them, but I'll do it by using a custom fact. Least that way I can see them in FTA.
Just need to think about what to record and the format.

 

[Bee]

Does anyone capture witnesses as Facts in their trees? If yes, did you create a custom Fact, what sort of info do you capture?

I do too. In FTM I created a custom (shared) Fact 'Witnesses' and add the names and relationship to bride or groom, if known. I have often investigated the unrelated witnesses which has led to some interesting discoveries. Anything interesting gets recorded in the notes section for the relevant bride/groom.

I also use the another version of Witnesses (not shared) for witnesses to Wills. This too has proved revealing as they aren't always solicitors. In fact they rarely are.

 

[Susan48]

The Essex Society for Family History CDs of the Colchester Parish Registers indexes names of witnesses as well as of bride and groom, which is a useful bonus.

I should have said that when you search by name you get witnesses as well as bride and groom. There is no separate index for witnesses.

 

[Liberty]

I do too. In FTM I created a custom (shared) Fact 'Witnesses' and add the names and relationship to bride or groom, if known. I have often investigated the unrelated witnesses which has led to some interesting discoveries. Anything interesting gets recorded in the notes section for the relevant bride/groom.

I also use the another version of Witnesses (not shared) for witnesses to Wills. This too has proved revealing as they aren't always solicitors. In fact they rarely are.

You are very diligent. I've not gone very far into witnesses for wills, but look closely at executors and those applying for probate/administration. They are often nephews, sons-in-law etc. There is one collection of rather upmarket relatives in early 19c who remind me of Jane Austen writing about few families in a small country circle. This lot seemed to marry, witness, execute, etc within a small closed loop. If I could do a search for '2 or more of the following names in combination' I could practically be sure I could trace a link to my tree.