View Full Version : Proof Of Marriage
Here's a question, but I am not sure if its answerable -
My third and fourth great grandparents both married in places away from home.
The thirds went from Brighton to London in 1859, said they were over 18 and had a child a week later. Three months later they returned home to Brighton and had the child baptised at the church where the bride was baptised.
So, did the minister ask for proof of the marriage, as he would only have their word for the fact that they did actually marry ? They did the same two years later with their second child, but moved back to Brighton before the birth of their third child.
The fourths also went home to the brides parish to baptise their first child in 1839. But I cannot find their marriage anywhere and it has been suggested that maybe they were not really married - so did the minister need proof ?
I don't know where the child was born, but their second and third were born in Brighton, but either they were not baptised, or there is a gap in the St Nicholas baptisms for the period. (1840s)
I have asked for help to find this marriage before, so I am not really asking for help to find it - I have looked at every bride and groom (of the right name) in freebmd to see if one is listed but the other half missing, with only one slight possibility.
But I am curious to know if they needed to prove to the minister that they were married, as in many other cases, the child is baptised and recorded as baseborn when the minister knows the parents are not married.
If they did have to prove their marriage, then I will have to look again for the marriage, and the birth registration of the first child.
Di
I think it would probably depend on the minister.
We have plenty of people on our tree who have said they were married when their children were baptised, but were not. Proof that they were not married tends to be either a later marriage for the couple or death or burial in a former surname etc. Having said that, most of them were living in London or other cities where they were probably not known to the minister and I guess fewer questions were asked.
On another related tack.....they can't have wanted proof when a widow or widower remarried that their previous spouse had indeed died, or we wouldn't find such a high rate of bigamy!!
Perhaps ministers thought liars would get their comeuppance in the afterlife?!!
Olde Crone
24-08-13, 18:12
I agree with Merry that Vicars would tend to believe what a couple told him - unless they were a bit dodgy-looking, in which case he might write to the incumbent at the church where they said they married, more for his own interest than anything else really.
They would get their comeuppance in the afterlife if they were lying - but they might also get it here on earth should the need arise for their child to prove it was legitimate (for some types of apprenticeship etc).
I am reasonably certain in my own tree that a number of marriages went unrecorded or the records have subsequently been lost. Some definitely didn't marry of course but that does tend to come out in various ways as Merry says - a later marriage or in one case, a census entry which states "she acts as wife" lol.
OC
I suppose it was a bit much to ask for, for me to want some kind of proof that they did marry.
As you say, if proof was needed, a lot of second (and bigamous) marriages would not have occurred.
My lot must have been very law abiding, this is one of the very few, if not the only marriage I cannot find post 1800.
I have been trawling through freebmd, I think I have found a possible marriage in Lambeth, Sep Q 1838. About the right time, four grooms, three brides listed. I might just get it !
Di
We might be able to work out who the missing person is if you tell us who the other are!
Is it these? :D
BIRD Sarah Lambeth 4 238
HARDEMAN Alfred Lambeth 4 238
HOLMES Emma Lambeth 4 238
MARSHALL John Lambeth 4 238
MARTIN William Lambeth 4 238
PUDDY Thomas Crowder Lambeth 4 238
WHITING Jemima Lambeth 4 238
Pity the GRO index pages are retyped ones, which means it's not very likely a FreeBMD transcriber might have misread a page number, but very likely a GRO typist did. It's still more likely than not that the "missing" bride's name is on the index though.
I am looking for a marriage between Robert Martin and Elizabeth Berwick.
First son William, baptised in Buxted, Sussex, 14 Jul 1839. (William and Elizabeth Martin, abode Brighton, father carpenter)/
I am sure one of these birth registrations is him
April -June Quarter July-September Quarter
Martin William, Battle, 7 222 Martin Male, Steyning 7 401
Martin Male, Lewes 7 359
Martin Male, Tunbridge 5 436
Second son Robert, born 24 Jan 1841 Brighton Sussex - birth certificate says Elizabeth Martin, formerly Berwick. (father William Martin carpenter)
The only other marriage I can that might be possible is Jun Q 1839 Westminster.
They did not get married in Sussex before civil reg. as they are not in the Sussex Marriage Index, but if they went to London, or even just Kent, the marriage is not showing up in familysearch or anywhere I can think of.
I did look for Elizabeth Berwick in that quarter of 1838 but there are none. So unless she was entirely left out of the index, then its not the right marriage. I guess the next thing is look for the other couples in the census.
Off to see if I can marry them up.
Di
The only people who seem to have worried about marriage were the Guardians of the Poor.
London in the 1800s seems full of common law wives. They appear to be married per censuses and baptisms. It's only when they decide they really want to commit to each other that they then have to sneak off, out of area, to get wed.
When they fall upon hard times, the Guardians need to know who pays to look after them, then all the skeletons come tumbling out of the closet.
If William, aged 2 in 1841 was born in Brighton (abode on the baptism), then surely this registration is more likely to be the right one:
Births Sep 1838
MARTIN Male Brighton 7 235
Second son Robert, born 24 Jan 1841 Brighton Sussex - birth certificate says Elizabeth Martin, formerly Berwick. (father William Martin carpenter)
I'm not saying you have the wrong certificate, but it's a bit worrying the 1841 census shows Robert's age as 2 months (at least that's what it looks like to me!! - not that clear) when he would have been over four months old on the night of 6th June when the census was taken.
Have you ever considered getting James' birth cert? (on the face of it, there's only one match for that one too! lol)
Marriages Jun 1839
HALL James Westminster 1 398
HITCHCOCK John Hanson Westminster 1 398
LEMMING Mary Jane Westminster 1 398
MARTIN William Westminster 1 398
PETRIE Euphemia Westminster 1 398
RODMAN Harriet Ann Westminster 1 398
Wall John Westminster 1 398
This William Martin (mentioned in your earlier post) married Harriet Ann Rodman on 20th May 1839 at St John the Evangelist, Westminster.
Births Jun 1838 (>99%)
BERWICK William Uckfield 7 451
I did wonder whether the above was the birth as it's the right rd, but it's a bit before the baptism.
Births Jun 1838 (>99%)
BERWICK William Uckfield 7 451
I did wonder whether the above was the birth as it's the right rd, but it's a bit before the baptism.
But the bigger the gap between birth and baptism the more likely they were to have already moved to Brighton if the birth didn't take place there.
I presume this William didn't survive until 1851?
Thanks all of you.
Perhaps I should not have discounted the 1838 births, its a pity his birth date was not recorded by the minister/curate on the baptism register. So add two more to the list.
Yes Merry, neither William survived until the 1851 census, as then I would have some idea of their birthplace. Although, Elizabeth's is a "ditto" for Brighton, so I am not sure if that's accurate, or just copied in a hurry.
Re the "wrong" Robert Martins birth certificate - I cannot see any other Male Martin birth in 1841 that could be Robert - there is only the one Robert Martin in Jan Q and no "male" in Jan or Apr Q registered in Brighton. I agree his age is given as 2 months, but he said he was 22 when he got married in 1859 and he was still 22 for the 1861 census, so maybe he lied about his father on the marriage cert. too and I should just start all over again.
Marr cert link - http://search.ancestry.com.au/iexec?htx=View&r=5544&dbid=1623&iid=31280_198089-00300&fn=Robert&ln=Martin&st=r&ssrc=pt_t4400705_p-1609700634_kpidz0q3d-1609700634z0q26pgz0q3d32768z0q26pgplz0q3dpid&pid=3527082
There is only one James Martin in the Dec Q of 1842 in Brighton (although the Male registered Brighton Jun Q could be him, as well).
I hadn't really considered getting James' birth cert. I was more thinking of William, but I suppose James would be more sure. I was really hoping for the marriage certificate ! Baptisms for Robert and James would have been helpful, but they are missing too.
I think it is a good suggestion to get James birth certificate, so I will send off to the GRO.
Di
I suppose I'm aware of a woman in OH's tree who only mentioned a previous marriage on the birth cert of one child. All the others suggested she was in her first marriage. She was actually a widow at 19 and 21 at her second marriage.
I suppose I'm aware of a woman in OH's tree who only mentioned a previous marriage on the birth cert of one child. All the others suggested she was in her first marriage. She was actually a widow at 19 and 21 at her second marriage.
I've got a similar in mine. I have a clutch of birth certs, none of which gave her previously married name.
There is an early Elizabeth Berwick marriage in Steyning.
Of course, there are also marriages which fail, legally precluding a second marriage.
I think there was an awful lot of "living in sin" happening......
Di......strangely my oddest one is also a Martin from Sussex, but living in Australia by 1841 when she "married".... Gave the entire date on her child's birth cert.
Her real husband was still living in Sydney.
Well, living in sin or properly married, I am stumped by this pair.
I have requested James Martin's birth certificate, but if if matches Roberts, I am no further advanced.
There are several Elizabeth Berwicks, born 1800-1810, the youngest being the best match with the census records. I can speculate all I want whether she is the daughter of Richard, William, Robert or Edward, but nothing helps prove which one.
And there are too many William Martins to even begin to start. I don't think even his death certificate will help.
William Martin Junior of Brighton being baptised in Buxted is the only clue I have that one of his parents might have come from a place other than Brighton.
There is not even a tree on ancestry with any useful information about the Berwicks !
Back in the too hard basket, at least until the birth certificate arrives.
Di
So, I have just received the birth certificate for James Martin.
Born 15th Sept 1842 at 31 Hanover St Brighton - same address as the 1841 census, and the birth certificate of Robert Martin, 18months earlier.
Father William Martin, carpenter, mother Elizabeth Martin formerly Berwick.
Birth registered by the father, William Martin.
So, the only fact extra I know from this is that William Martin was alive in Oct 1842, as he registered the birth of his son.
I guess now, I will try and track down the birth registration of William Martin junior. I think I will try for the Male Martin Reg Sep 1838 - if its not right, I guess it is going to cost me several pounds before I find the right one. oh, well, its only money - and now I am determined to find him and his parents marriage.
Di
Think positive! They are at least consistent and you haven't bought any incorrect certs yet. Good luck!
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.