Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Help interpreting a marriage certificate please
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joan | Report | 4 Aug 2006 12:45 |
|
I have just received my grandparent's marriage certificate. ( a church wedding) In the bottom right, where it says 'by..........or after.......by me' (where it usually mentions banns) it says 'by Superintendant Registrar's Certificate' . It is then signed by the vicar. What is a Superintendant Registrar's Certificate? My father told me that the Vicar had advised his grandmother against marrying his grandfather. Thanks for any help in this Joan |
|||
|
Joan | Report | 4 Aug 2006 13:33 |
|
Thanks Jack - presumably banns were still called? Joan |
|||
|
Mavis | Report | 4 Aug 2006 13:58 |
|
You don't say the date of the wedding, and things might change, but when I married in 1972 at a church that wasn't licenced, the banns were published at the registry office, as there were for a RO wedding, but then the registrar attended the service in the church and 'did the legal bits'. At one time when tax laws made it more economical to be single than married, I remember a short story on the radio about a couple that divorced and then remarried in such a church without the registrar, because they wanted to be married in 'God's eyes' but didn't care what the state thought!!! Be fun if one had someone like that in the ancestors! Mavis |
|||
|
Christine in Herts | Report | 4 Aug 2006 14:24 |
|
I can't think of a circumstance in which an incumbent of a parish church (C of E) would not also be a Registrar by virtue of that office. Perhaps the ceremony was not taken by an Anglican clergyman? Christine |
|||
|
Mavis | Report | 4 Aug 2006 14:28 |
|
A thought, if the vicar was against the marriage, perhaps they planned a RO wedding, then the vicar relented, or perhaps a neighbouring vicar offered to officiate, but having already carried out the civil publication of banns, they didn't need to be called in the church. Mavis |
|||
|
Gwyn in Kent | Report | 4 Aug 2006 14:29 |
|
I was thinking that Christine. Joan What does it sayin the section under the boxes with the names ie Married in the.........according to the Rites and ceremonies of the ........ My great grandparents certificate shows that a Registrar was present as well as the Minister. They married in a Zion Chapel... Primitive Methodists. |
|||
|
Joan | Report | 4 Aug 2006 14:44 |
|
Sorry for delay - had a visitor. Thanks for help everyone The marriage was in 1905 'Solemnised at St George's Parish Church ....Altrincham' The bottom part reads 'Married in the Parish Church according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Established Church by Superintendant's Certificate' with the a signature and the word 'Vicar' below. There is no mention of Banns Joan |
|||