Genealogy Chat

I married in 1969 (snap, Kath) and was not asked for my birth cert.........however, I was over 21, and did not need any form of parental consent.......just as well, my parents were both dead by the time I was 15!!

I think it may be different if the person getting married is a minor...........


As for Linda's vicar..........if the church is so beautiful, maybe he is fed up of people wanting to use it merely as a 'backdrop' for the photos!

Reg

Not sure when they were introduced, but current procedures require the following:-

Procedure for marrying

You and your partner will be asked for certain information when giving notice of your intention to marry. Giving false information is a criminal offence. The information which may be required is:-

* evidence of name and address
* evidence of date of birth
* if one partner has been married before or in a civil partnership, documentary evidence that the marriage or civil partnership has ended, for example, a death certificate or decree absolute. Uncertified photocopies are not accepted. A certified copy of a decree absolute may be obtained from the court which decided the divorce. This can take about a week
* evidence of nationality.

A variety of documents can be used as evidence of the information required, but a passport, travel document or birth certificate is usually sufficient. You should contact the register office where you're getting married for more specific advice on what they will accept.

Thanks for that Lindy,
That makes things worse, now I can't say that would have been impossible and give a straight yes or no, it's got to be a maybe so I still can't prove anything.

I'm going to bed, enough for one day.

Nite

Yes Kath,
The vicar is a cantancerous old ................!!! The church is my local one, it's absolutely beautiful and everyone wants to use it for the weddings etc. It's also attached to a really good C of E primary school, so the vicar can afford to pick and choose just who and what he'll allow. He says "jump" and everyone says "how high"

Found this on a genealogy webchat:

Would it have been possible in 1891 to lie about your age and and claim to be a spinster, for the purpose of marriage?

It certainly would! No proof of identity, age or marital status was required by the Church or the civil registrars. Many people were economical with the truth about their age, particularly where there was a disparity in age between bride and groom. Lying about marital condition also took place but was less prevalent and more serious, as bigamy is generally frowned upon by the law, whereas lying about one’s age is not in itself a crime. As you will know, the wedding ceremony provides the opportunity for those present to declare a “lawful impediment” to the wedding if they are aware of the bride or groom already being legally in possession of a better half. But bigamy was surprisingly common in an age when divorce was not a viable option for most people.

Hi Kath

He did get married, perhaps it's just me being dumb, but the entry for his birth in 1911 wasn't added to the register until 1938.

Lindy Lou,

Did your relative actually get married? If he did, then obviously birth certificates weren't required because if his birth wasn't registered then he could not obtain a birth certificate.

Linda,

I think I would change my church if I found a vicar as awkward as that. Yes, I'm sure it's better if godparents are baptised, but I think that them being good people is far more important.

Kath. x

A late relative of mine only found out his birth hadn't been registered when he was planning to marry, so assume birth certificates had to be produced in the 1930s.

Probably Kath, He wouldn't accept the godparents my daughter chose for her son because they hadn't been baptised.

I think it was just your vicar being fussy. I didn't even have a copy of my birth certificate at that time.

Kath. x

It must vary then...1999 and no certificate

Sheila

Hi Kath,
I got married in 1971 and both hubby and I had to produce our birth certs. and proof of baptism or the vicar wouldn't marry us.
Linda

Well I married in 1969 and I didn't have to produce my birth certificate, so I very much doubt you had to in 1900.

Kath. x

In order to get married around 1900, did you have to produce your birth cert. as proof of who you were or would it have been possible to get married in any name you fancied???
Thanks anyone.
Linda