Genealogy Chat

I think Liverpool did have problems with Civil Registration, particularly registrations of births, which are well known and caused a scandal at the time. I still find it very hard to believe that individuals were required to register their own marriages. The whole point about C of E marriages was that you didn't have to have the registrar present. One way to test this might be, where you have photocopies of the original marriage entries, to look at the other one on the page. Logic would dictate that the GRO references ought to be identical or consecutive.

Thanks for your interest in this everyone! I was rather 'put down' by the magazine editor. This is what the author (Nick Barratt) of the article replied: 'It's a figure based on studies about civil registration in Liverpool (and elsewhere) pre-1875. The reader is quite right, in the sense that it was illegal not to register a marriage, but this did not make the marriage illegal; simply that the paperwork was incomplete. Parish weddings still occurred, and it was down to the couple to register the marriage at the civil registrar; and naturally all civil weddings were registered. Indeed the law wasn't tightened up until 1875, which is why this is cited as a key date. Obviously, use of civil registration will vary from place to place around the country - which is why I wrote 'up to one third'' Notice he says in the first line 'studies of civil registration' NOT marriage registration. Non of my books say that it 'was down to the couple to register the marriage at the civil registrar'. The books I have in my possesion all say the registrar collected the certificates from the church. Anne

Jews and quakers have been able to marry according to their own rites since 1753 and they had standard procedures for submitting information (though I gather some rabbis were a trifle lax). I thought that non-conformist marriages HAD to have the registrar present as well as the minister to ensure that it was legally binding. When I get home, I'll see if I can dig out Colin Chapman's book on marriages. That is likely to have a definitive answer. (I hope!)

The point is that if you are married, the filling in of the marriage cert by the registrar (of C of E or other minister qualified to act as registrar) and the couple and witnesses concerned, is the same as registering a marriage. Otherwise people would have to go to the register office and do it separately. I can't think this is what the article meant. They probably meant that not all marriage certs copies reached the GRO. i do know that if you got married in an non-C of E (ie non-conformist/synagogue etc) place of worship you had to register the marriage separately, but I thought this still happened at the wedding. nell

I have a marriage cert from 1838 and its the same as now except for the age column where it has the usual full age. I'm sure they had to be registered too. Margaret

I'd be very surprised too - the Victorians were such meticulous record keepers!

Perish the thought that anything we read about family history could be wrong, but this sounds dodgy to me. I know that information could go missing between the registrar and the GRO. There seems to have been no quality control to check what was missing. But that information was not submitted by individuals getting married, so it surely cannot have been their responsibility. I thought actually that it was the scandal of OVER registration that caused the law to be changed, as registrars were paid by results, so the enterprising ones bumped the figures up a bit. Any feedback on this would be interesting, but how on earth would you prove such a figure? Even if there were serious under-recording in one registration district, for one period, how could you extrapolate it for the whole population? I'd be really interested in any follow up to this. Brenda

Thanks Richard, I thought I was going mad. At least one other person is surprised!!! Anne

I must say, I am surprised too. I thought that the act of signing the marriage register was in itself the registration. In fact, I believe that marriage entries in the parish registers after 1837 contain identical information as that on the certificates, right down to the witness signatures etc. Surely it wasn't then up to the individuals being married to then re-register the details with the civil authorities? that doesn't sound right to me! Richard

Yes, Joy, I realise this and understand the implication for BIRTH registration but am at a loss to understand how it worked with marriages. After all part of the ceremony (wherever it was held) is the filling out of a certificate. I thought the responsibility of sending it to the registrar was with the vicar? Anne

It wasn't compulsory before then. Joy

In the recent copy of 'Your Family Tree' magazine there is an article for beginners about marriage certificates. It goes into a lot of detail and is very useful. However one statement made me very surprised. This was that (just like birth registration) that up to one third of marriages went unregistered before 1875. I had never heard this about marriage registration before and find it quite hard to believe. Surely the filling in of the certificate at the marriage was sufficient? I have been in contact with the editor who in turn has queried this with the author. Apparently it was up to the family to register the marriage with the civil authorities. Its the first I've heard of this. What does everyone think? Perhaps I'm just ignorant, with this big hole in what I thought I knew about certificates! Anne

See below