Genealogy Chat

Looking through some marriages on a parish register I noticed the same witness for several apparently unrelated marriages. Can anyone tell me why this might happen? alice

One of my ancestors was the sexton's wife. She seemed to witness rather more than her fair share of weddings. If you can find witnesses on the census, they often prove to have jobs that involve lurking around the church. Brenda

Sounds very shady Brenda - bit like me lurking round the gravestones looking for ancestors last saturday lol! Will try looking him upon census. Just wondered if there were enough guests at wedding - you would think you would choose a close friend or relative really -but perhaps they viewed differently to the way we do now. Alice

Could it be the parish clerk? Heather

I think the parish clerk was a witness to more marriages than relatives were! I have found many where the same name appears for every entry on the page. I think it is worth noting this when looking at the marriage entries---i.e. disregard this guy!--he witnessed them all!! Wendy

Cannot find him on census marriages were around 1830's so would probably not be on 1871 anyway! He doesn't sign as clerk but the handwriting does seem very similar to his signiture, Alice

I'm not sure how much victorian novelists knew about marriages: Wilkie Collins certainly made mistakes in his descriptions, but Dickens has couples heading off to church together, with pew-openers as witnesses. For that most sentimental of novelists, it seems a very casual approach to a life changing event. You do find dominant characters, presumably parish clerks, standing in as witnesses and I imagine it would be a bold couple who dispensed with their services. My friend's grandparents appear to have dragged a couple of strangers off the streets to witness their marriage. Brenda

Alice- I think you'll find that witnesses to a marriage must be LITERATE - i.e. had to be able to sign their name; not allowed to sign with 'X'. This would cut the eligible list down remarkably at even a crowded rural wedding. So it would usually be the Parish Clerk and a.n.o. who could read & write who would tend to be the 'regulars' in the witness column. Paul Kitchener

Paul I did wonder about this, but looking at the copy I have the sister of the groom was the other witness and signed with an X. Alice

Parish Registers were usually "totalled up" at the end of every year, when a copy was made for the Bishop (the Bishps Transcripts) and these copies were signed by the Vicar and the Churchwarden or Parish Clerk. Proving, at least in my case, that the Parish Clerk was more often than not, a witness to the marriage.

My 3x great grandparents married in 1839. The bride, groom and both witnesses were illiterate so just added the cross to their name. I've also seen many registers where successive marriages were witnessed by the parish clerk. Probably depended on the incumbant, perhaps he preferred it that way. Cazza

Paul You cannot make that assumption. I have a witness who signed with an x and that same witness signed her name at her wedding the year previously. She was NOT a parish clerk, but was the wife of an ag lab. The reality was very different. Many of my ancestors, who were mainly ag labs, are signing their own names at weddings both as bride and groom and witnesses, and incidentally all of my signings are by relatives and not by the parish clerk, and they all lived in hamlets miles from the nearest town. In most cases you can tell who the parish clerk is because it says so. The parish clerk in my hamlet was an interesting character himself. Most of these "certs" have many witnesses. On one cert I have there are 7 witnesses and I have now worked out who they all were. Most are ending up marrying other relatives. In a very rural situation, and this is back to the 1700's, it makes one realise just how close some of these communities were. I know that many of my ancestors were literate and they had far better handwriting than my own. One, a so called "illiterate" 19 year old apprentice baker in 1850's Ireland is writing eloquent letters to a local newspaper, worthy of James Joyce, and would put to shame many a first class graduate of today! They did, however, often do as they were told, so if the powers that be told them to put their "mark" here, then that is precisely what they did!! Women were often particularly singled out as being unable to understand anything, let alone to be able to read or write. shock, horror! But we know differently today!!! Please do not do your ancestors this disservice by making these assumptions. I know that my family was NOT unusual. If you go to Family History Societies meetings, you will find many talks on this sort of subject, which make for a fascinating insight into our families, and this is precisely the reason why it is impossible to do ALL your family history on the internet. Janet

It was probably the name of the parish clerk. They often served as witnesses at weddings.