• Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

  • If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  • This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  • It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

Wedding witnesses

Pauline said:
One of those marriages - which annoyingly I can't find at the moment - was accompanied in the register by a letter from the Registrar General pointing out that a mother's name must not be recorded at a marriage, and that this one should be struck from the record and not entered on any certificate issued. Presumably the letter was sent to the clergyman after the quarterly returns were received.
Click to expand...
Fascinating - that would make a great article for the newsletter (if you can find it).
 
Pauline said:
One of those marriages - which annoyingly I can't find at the moment - was accompanied in the register by a letter from the Registrar General pointing out that a mother's name must not be recorded at a marriage, and that this one should be struck from the record and not entered on any certificate issued. Presumably the letter was sent to the clergyman after the quarterly returns were received.
Click to expand...
I agree with Peter, it is fascinating, it also makes me wonder how this will pan out in the future when people who have two mothers want to marry.
 
peter said:
(if you can find it)
Click to expand...
I think I've found it but not the accompanying letter. I knew I'd looked at this marriage a long time ago, but my memory of whose marriage it was and where it happened didn't quite match up, so it took a bit of finding.

Anyway, the marriage was in East Farleigh (Kent) on 4 Oct 1890 between Richard Solman(s) & Rose Emma Craddock, and Richard's 'father' is given as Harriet Solmans (illegitimate). I viewed this marriage on film in Maidstone back in 2002, so it's maybe not surprising my memory of it was a bit hazy. (I wasn't able to get copies at the time, so all I have is my written notes which only include details of the marriage itself.)

Anyway, East Farleigh registers are now online at FMP, but I couldn't find the letter. I checked a few pages either side of the marriage, and inside the front and back covers but it wasn't there. I haven't been through the whole register to look for it as images are so slow to load at FMP, but it may be that this letter - being a loose insert - wasn't digitised. There is a letter from the Registrar General stuck on the inside back cover but that is a standard one dated 1837.

Assuming I have remembered this correctly, then presumably the letter is still there in the original register and on the old LDS film.
 
Just as an aside - I was randomly reading 70 facts about Queen Elizabeth's wedding and the page includes an image of the marriage register, which includes signatures of at least 20 witnesses (at least two of which were reigning monarchs). [I may have miscounted, purely because some have added their titles as well as their names, and it can be a touch confusing]

If you're interested in seeing it, you can find it here between numbers 22 and 23.
 
Fascinating. The two reigning monarchs I spotted are George VI and Haakon VII, but there may be someone I've overlooked.

This marriage isn't in the GRO indexes, presumably because those in line for the throne marry under different legislation.
 
I have now discovered that James went to Canada in 1906, which would explain why I can't find him in any later UK records. However, I can't find him in any Canadian records either, nor in any USA ones.
Click to expand...
Don't give up, my great uncle worked his way across Canada, ended up in Alberta, had a fist fight with his immediate boss in a lumber yard at 40 degrees below zero and jacked in his job despite the workers begging him to stay, and set out for Australia. On the boat to Australia he struck up a conversation with a fellow passenger who persuaded him that the opportunities were better in Hawaii. He got off in Hawaii and lived there until he died.
At that time the world was James's oyster, keep searching.
 
peter said:
Fascinating. The two reigning monarchs I spotted are George VI and Haakon VII, but there may be someone I've overlooked.

This marriage isn't in the GRO indexes, presumably because those in line for the throne marry under different legislation.
Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia it also includes King Micheal of Romania and King Frederick of Denmark (and his queen).

I'm not sure about the signature directly below that of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, as that also looks like someone has added the "R".
 
jorghes said:
you can find it here
Click to expand...
An interesting site. I was a very new Girl Guide at the time and can remember the excitement, especially as we had contributed towards the wedding cake (I seem to remember that we gave the dried fruit).
Being a Guide was a wonderful experience for an only child with no extended family. Over the years I have held many positions in the Association and still keep in touch with my Guiding colleagues. "Once a Guide, always a Guide".
 
I've just been looking at an 1843 marriage in Batheaston (Somerset) and this has 7 witnesses.

OK, so not as many as at the marriage which prompted this thread but above the norm for this era.
 
My 1977 marriage has five witnesses. I wanted my mother to be a witness as she would otherwise not be on the record and she had raised me alone after I was 6 months old. I also wanted my mother's brother, who had been a surrogate father in some ways and who I had asked to give me away, to be a witness. It was only fair to ask my husband's parents sign as well, plus the best man!

This was a marriage in London, England, in a Roman Catholic church, with a (Deputy) Registrar present.
 
Last edited:
I've just come across another marriage with 7 witnesses, in 1823 in Heacham, Norfolk. His brother married the same year in the same parish but he had only 5 witnesses.

It seems to have been a thing in this parish to have lots of witnesses - there is another marriage in 1824 with 7 witnesses. The parish clerk (I assume) has added his signature to every marriage so most marriages had at least 3 witnesses.
 
I've seen a marriage register entry with only one witness - but as I understand it this doesn't invalidate the marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top