Genealogy Chat

That's a good point, Heather. Apparently, it only became traditional to even wear white when getting married after 1840 and I think even then the average person would have just worn their Sunday best. Now we are able to travel great distances easily to get to weddings, but it wasn't so easy in the past. When my great-great grandparents got married, none of their parents or relatives were named as witnesses. I don't recognise the names of the witnesses but I wonder if they were the owners of the house where either the bride or groom was lodging. Perhaps they literally did just that - had a lunch break from work, took a workmate along with them and got married, then went back to work. Given that most of my ancestors were agricultural labourers and domestic servants, they probably couldn't afford any more time off work.

Chris, Don`t panic Mr Manwaring........My 2xgreat grandparents did not marry until the last of their children was 15 years old. Maybe they thought the trial had been successful so they had better make it legal!!!!!!! Kathlyn

No, more likely they both had employment in the area. I think vicars were well used to couples with kids before marriage. I found one couple getting married the week before their eldest son married - so 25 years on and a family of 6 kids hadnt pricked their conscience. I am wondering if the vicar had a word with them at the same time as when their son went to arrange his marriage! My aforementioned GGPx3 married in an abbey only 4 miles from both their birth parishes but I think it was a case of convenience as both of them were probably working on a farm near the abbey. I had wondered if it was because the parents werent happy about the marriage but the first son was baptised in their home village a couple of weeks later - it seems girls often went home to mum for the first baby. I think we tend to imagine 'weddings' like we know them whereas back then it may have been the bride, groom and a couple of people popping in for the wedding then back to work.

Here's another puzzle for you,can anyone solve this? my G.Gran [mentioned above] was born in Little Compton Warwick,and her husband was born Long Compton warwick,but they were married in Leicestershire! i always thought they married in the brides parish,could it be because they had there 1st child outside of marriage and her own parish or his parish refused to marry them?? Chris.

My G.Gran on the other side of the family had a child 5yrs befor marriage, i did'nt know untill i started researching my tree,i knew he was the eldest,also she was 6mths when she walked down the isle. she carried that secret to her grave! what she did'nt realise was that her G.Grandaughter was going to find out years later!! she died when i was 12. Chris.

I found one of those not long ago, on my dad's side. Two eighteen year olds got married in September qtr 1892, but their first baby was born in the June qtr. Nothing surprises me any more. I think the living together was also the case with my grandma and grandad in 1949 - both gave the same address on their marriage certificate, and she was seven and a half months pregnant, too. I've often found future couples living together before marriage, but that was usually because one set of parents owned a farm and the other partner was a farm servant or farm hand.

As Reg says, it was pretty common to have children or be pregnant before marriage. My own GGMx4 must have virtually been giving birth when she walked up the aisle from GGFX3 baptism date. It may just be they gave the same address to save money on two lots of banns being read - I have lots of those too.

forgot to say,i think there was another child befor Grandad was born,but not sure! so that child would of been befor the marriage. Chris.

Hi, Can anyone solve this for me? I have my G.Grandparents marriage cert dated July 1896,and on it they both had the same address,living with G.Granddads parents! there son[my Granddad] was born January 1897 at the same address! could they have been living together under the same roof as G.Granddads parents?? or,maybe because she was pregnant her parents threw her out? I know that in those days it was unheard of,altho,it probably did go on!! oh the things i have found out since starting my tree 4yrs ago!!!! Chris.

Ah! that could be it! he was born Astley Green Lancs,and she was born Hindley Lancs. Chris.

Possibly just living there for the time necessary to qualify for marriage in a particular church............. But, more likely, taken in by the future in-laws, either because her parents didn't approve of the match, or because of the pregnancy. And it was actually fairly normal for the bride to be pregnant before the wedding........in some communities, where lots of help was needed to bring in a living, the marriage would be arranged only after the bride proved that she was fertile........ Reg