Query about Marriage Certificates

[TonyC]

I bought a copy of a 1946 marriage certificate from the GRO for a marriage which took place in a Register Office and have two questions about it.

First, should I be surprised that the photocopy is from a a transcript of an original entry in which the whole certificate has been copied - everything has been written by a single person.

Second, the certificate has been signed not only by the Registrar, but also by the Superintendent Registrar. Is this normal?

(I don't normally come across Register Office certificates so I don't know whether this is characteristic of them or not.)

 

[G6JPG (John)]

I bought a copy of a 1946 marriage certificate from the GRO for a marriage which took place in a Register Office and have two questions about it.

First, should I be surprised that the photocopy is from a a transcript of an original entry in which the whole certificate has been copied - everything has been written by a single person.

I think that's normal for a GRO certificate; they are copied into the GRO's registers. To get a copy of the original one (i. e. that contains the actual signatures of the parties concerned), you need to seek it from the local authority where the marriage took place, not the GRO.

Second, the certificate has been signed not only by the Registrar, but also by the Superintendent Registrar. Is this normal?

(I don't normally come across Register Office certificates so I don't know whether this is characteristic of them or not.)

Sorry, no idea. At a guess, if it was a registry office marriage, the registrar "signature" - which has probably been copied from what you say, so is not the original - is that of the official who performed the marriage (equivalent to the vicar or whatever for a church marriage), whereas the superintendent one is to verify that what you have is a true copy of what's in the records.

 

[Heather]

I have only one certificate from a registry office marriage and that has the registrar and the superintendent registrar signatures.

 

[NikiMac]

I have one from 1957 and that has the Registrar and the Deputy Superintendent Registrar as signatories

 

[ChalfontR]

A civil marriage would have two registrars involved - one who conducts the ceremony and the other who completes the register. The one officiating is always a superintendent registrar, even if only shown as a "deputy Superintendent" just for that purpose.

 

[Helen7]

My parents, my parents-in-law and myself were all married in Register Offices and all three certificates are signed by the Registrar and the Superintendent Registrar.

 

[Sue_3]

I have a marriage that took place in a Register Office in 1916 where I originally ordered a certificate from the GRO. Then, because I realised that the marriage might be bigamous, I ordered another certificate from the local RO so that I could see the original handwriting for the signatures of the bride and groom, to compare with those on other documents.

The Local RO copy is a print of the original register entry, which is signed by the Registrar who performed the marriage and also by the Superintendent Registrar. It shows all of the signatures on the document (bride, groom, witnesses, and both Registrars) in the original handwriting of each person. The modern copy was further signed at the time it was issued to me by the Deputy Superintendent Registrar who issued the copy, to certify that it was "a true copy of an entry in a register in my custody".

The GRO copy is a print of the copy of the contents of the register entry that the local RO would have sent to the GRO. So it has all of the same information, but all in the handwriting of whoever made the copies to send to the GRO, and is on the printed form certifying that it is "a true copy of an entry in the certified copy of a register of Marriages in the Registration District of ...".

 

[Helen7]

It's funny, I'd never thought about it before, but all 3 marriage certificates mentioned in my previous post - which were given to us brides and grooms at the time of our marriages - are all Certified Copies. The only actual signature is that of the Registrar in the panel at the bottom to certify it as a true copy of an entry in the relevant register. So no original signatures of bride, groom or witnesses.

 

[Helen7]

Further to my last message, I notice that the certificate for my mother's second marriage in church is a 'Certified Copy' but it bears original signatures of bride, groom and witnesses, and is signed by the Curate (twice, the 2nd time to certify it as a true copy of the entry in the Marriage Register of that church).

 

[Susan48]

The certificate for my parents' marriage, also a certified copy but the one given to my parents at the time of their marriage in 1943, has been signed by the Assistant Curate not twice, but three times. The third signature is at the bottom right hand corner of the certificate, across a red one penny (1d) stamp. My maternal grandfather lent my parents a sum of money to help them buy a business in 1947, and my grandfather kept the receipts for the repayments made by my father in 1948 and 1949. He signed each receipt across a 2d or 2 x 1d stamp. I don't know when the requirement for signing across a stamp on official documents died out.

 

[Stuart]

I have both my parents' certificates made out and given to them on the day in 1941. They are written by the registrar, who does not state what he is, but puts his name in the space below the minister's and above"authorised person for the [name of church]". His second signature is for the "true copy" statement, and that's where the stamp is (there is a box to show where to stick it).

In this case the church was Congregational and the minister was not a regular there. He may not have had any parish responsibility, as actually he was Daniel T Jenkins, well known at the time as a theologist. I don't know why, but it was perhaps a busy time with lots of men knowing they would go abroad soon.

I imagine there is no reason why all the participants could not be asked to fill in two certificate forms as well as both books. For one thing it saved everyone waiting while the minister or registrar did it! I wonder if a registrar might insist on making the copy for some reason - even just "it's the standard procedure".

 

[Susan48]

In looking again at my parents' marriage certificate I see that one of the signatures of the curate is actually a statement of his name, i,e. "I, Leslie A Davis ... do hereby certify ...", so he did just sign it twice, not three times as I said above. Apologies for any confusion.

 

[ChalfontR]

I have both my parents' certificates made out and given to them on the day in 1941. They are written by the registrar, who does not state what he is, but puts his name in the space below the minister's and above"authorised person for the [name of church]". His second signature is for the "true copy" statement, and that's where the stamp is (there is a box to show where to stick it).

In this case the church was Congregational and the minister was not a regular there. He may not have had any parish responsibility, as actually he was Daniel T Jenkins, well known at the time as a theologist. I don't know why, but it was perhaps a busy time with lots of men knowing they would go abroad soon.

I imagine there is no reason why all the participants could not be asked to fill in two certificate forms as well as both books. For one thing it saved everyone waiting while the minister or registrar did it! I wonder if a registrar might insist on making the copy for some reason - even just "it's the standard procedure".

GRO has strict rules about the completion of registers and the issuing of certificates - for instance nothing is supposed to be entered into the register before the couple make their vows, however many clergy did fill out registers in advance, and just get the participants to sign. As a registrar I would fill out the certificates in advance of the ceremony to save time, but never the register (it's easy to cancel a certificate). The couple/witnesses shouldn't have their handwriting on any certificates.

But I did recently look at my own marriage cert, from a CofE church in 1985, and I can see that my wife and I both clearly signed it ourselves ! Contrary to proper instructions but some clergy like to do things their way.

An "authorised person" would be someone from the church, not a registrar as such, but acting as one for the purposes of recording marriages. This became a possibility for non CofE churches after the Marriage Act in 1898 allowed non-conformist churches to carry out their own registrations ( if they applied for the necessary authority - not all did) and removed the need for a registrar to attend.