Does anyone know if.....

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.

Profile	Posted by	Options	Post Date
Member Since: June 2003 Posts: 1,421 Send Message	Jacqui	Report	24 Sep 2003 21:34
Member Since: June 2003 Posts: 1,421 Send Message	I would imagine that it was not necessary in 1891 to have your birth certificate. I wouldn't think for a moment that a birth certificate was considered to be an important piece of paper in the 1800's. I think the happy couple would either atest that they were of age (and the registrar, minister would take this as being the truth). If it were obvious that they were under age then parental consent would need to be sought, but as ages and dates of birth were so iffy in those days, I don't think many people who married were exactly sure of their ages - I know there have been some errors on marriage certs in my own family - and I am sure you will find that ages of ancestors can be "flexible" to say the least. Jacqui
Member Since: June 2003 Posts: 196 Send Message	Donna	Report	24 Sep 2003 19:17
Member Since: June 2003 Posts: 196 Send Message	In order to get married you have to have a copy of your birth certificate, and would this be true in 1891. Now if you were not in touch with your parents to get that certificate, how would you get a copy? Or would you just register yourself again?