Witness to wedding

[David Marshall]

Out of 275 GRO format marriage certificates I have obtained, dating from
1838 to 1963, there is just one which only has a single witness recorded
(in 1882).
Was this legal? Does anyone else have an example?
David

[Doug Laidlaw]

Post by David Marshall
Out of 275 GRO format marriage certificates I have obtained, dating from
1838 to 1963, there is just one which only has a single witness recorded
(in 1882).
Was this legal? Does anyone else have an example?
David

I am pretty sure that only one witness to a wedding is not legal. A
soldier on active service can make a will without the required
formalities, but I have never heard of the same rule applying to marriages.

Did the other witness sign with a mark (a cross)?

[David Marshall]

Post by David Marshall
Out of 275 GRO format marriage certificates I have obtained, dating
from 1838 to 1963, there is just one which only has a single witness
recorded (in 1882).
Was this legal? Does anyone else have an example?
David

I am pretty sure that only one witness to a wedding is not legal.  A
soldier on active service can make a will without the required
formalities, but I have never heard of the same rule applying to marriages.
Did the other witness sign with a mark (a cross)?

No, it was just left blank.
It was a wedding in a parish church after banns and everything else is
just as would be expected.
David

[Chris Pitt Lewis]

Post by David Marshall

Post by David Marshall
Out of 275 GRO format marriage certificates I have obtained, dating
from 1838 to 1963, there is just one which only has a single witness
recorded (in 1882).
Was this legal? Does anyone else have an example?
David

I am pretty sure that only one witness to a wedding is not legal.  A
soldier on active service can make a will without the required
formalities, but I have never heard of the same rule applying to marriages.
Did the other witness sign with a mark (a cross)?

No, it was just left blank.
It was a wedding in a parish church after banns and everything else is
just as would be expected.
David

According to the excellent book by Rebecca Probert, Marriage Law for
Genealogists (2012), failure to comply with the requirement for the
marriage registration to be attested by two witnesses was not one of the
matters stated (in the Marriage Acts 1753 and 1836) to make the marriage
void. Therefore the marriage was valid (see pages 82, 88 and 92 of that
book).

However, if what you have is a certificate provided by the GRO, remember
that this is a copy of the copy sent by the Vicar to the Superintendant
Registrar. Mistakes can happen. It would be worth checking the parish
register to see whether a second witness appears there.

[David Marshall]

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis

Post by David Marshall

Post by David Marshall
Out of 275 GRO format marriage certificates I have obtained, dating
from 1838 to 1963, there is just one which only has a single witness
recorded (in 1882).
Was this legal? Does anyone else have an example?
David

I am pretty sure that only one witness to a wedding is not legal.  A
soldier on active service can make a will without the required
formalities, but I have never heard of the same rule applying to marriages.
Did the other witness sign with a mark (a cross)?

No, it was just left blank.
It was a wedding in a parish church after banns and everything else is
just as would be expected.
David

According to the excellent book by Rebecca Probert, Marriage Law for
Genealogists (2012), failure to comply with the requirement for the
marriage registration to be attested by two witnesses was not one of the
matters stated (in the Marriage Acts 1753 and 1836) to make the marriage
void. Therefore the marriage was valid (see pages 82, 88 and 92 of that
book).
However, if what you have is a certificate provided by the GRO, remember
that this is a copy of the copy sent by the Vicar to the Superintendant
Registrar. Mistakes can happen. It would be worth checking the parish
register to see whether a second witness appears there.

Thank you for that. The marriage was in Ewhurst and so the records ought
to be in the East Sussex Record Office near Brighton. I have not been
able to confirm this from a quick look at their website but if I have
the opportunity to be in the neighbourhood I will check more thoroughly.
David

[b***@sonnenkinder.org]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:25:08 +0100, David Marshall

Post by David Marshall

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis

Post by David Marshall

Post by David Marshall
Out of 275 GRO format marriage certificates I have obtained, dating
from 1838 to 1963, there is just one which only has a single witness
recorded (in 1882).
Was this legal? Does anyone else have an example?
David

I am pretty sure that only one witness to a wedding is not legal.  A
soldier on active service can make a will without the required
formalities, but I have never heard of the same rule applying to marriages.
Did the other witness sign with a mark (a cross)?

No, it was just left blank.
It was a wedding in a parish church after banns and everything else is
just as would be expected.
David

According to the excellent book by Rebecca Probert, Marriage Law for
Genealogists (2012), failure to comply with the requirement for the
marriage registration to be attested by two witnesses was not one of the
matters stated (in the Marriage Acts 1753 and 1836) to make the marriage
void. Therefore the marriage was valid (see pages 82, 88 and 92 of that
book).
However, if what you have is a certificate provided by the GRO, remember
that this is a copy of the copy sent by the Vicar to the Superintendant
Registrar. Mistakes can happen. It would be worth checking the parish
register to see whether a second witness appears there.

Thank you for that. The marriage was in Ewhurst and so the records ought
to be in the East Sussex Record Office near Brighton. I have not been
able to confirm this from a quick look at their website but if I have
the opportunity to be in the neighbourhood I will check more thoroughly.

Have you tried searching on freereg. The records are transcribed from
the parish register and witnesses are ( should be ) also transcribed.

[David Marshall]

Post by b***@sonnenkinder.org
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:25:08 +0100, David Marshall

Post by David Marshall

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis

Post by David Marshall

Post by David Marshall
Out of 275 GRO format marriage certificates I have obtained, dating
from 1838 to 1963, there is just one which only has a single witness
recorded (in 1882).
Was this legal? Does anyone else have an example?
David

I am pretty sure that only one witness to a wedding is not legal.  A
soldier on active service can make a will without the required
formalities, but I have never heard of the same rule applying to marriages.
Did the other witness sign with a mark (a cross)?

No, it was just left blank.
It was a wedding in a parish church after banns and everything else is
just as would be expected.
David

According to the excellent book by Rebecca Probert, Marriage Law for
Genealogists (2012), failure to comply with the requirement for the
marriage registration to be attested by two witnesses was not one of the
matters stated (in the Marriage Acts 1753 and 1836) to make the marriage
void. Therefore the marriage was valid (see pages 82, 88 and 92 of that
book).
However, if what you have is a certificate provided by the GRO, remember
that this is a copy of the copy sent by the Vicar to the Superintendant
Registrar. Mistakes can happen. It would be worth checking the parish
register to see whether a second witness appears there.

Thank you for that. The marriage was in Ewhurst and so the records ought
to be in the East Sussex Record Office near Brighton. I have not been
able to confirm this from a quick look at their website but if I have
the opportunity to be in the neighbourhood I will check more thoroughly.

Have you tried searching on freereg. The records are transcribed from
the parish register and witnesses are ( should be ) also transcribed.

As far as I can see transcriptions for Ewhurst do not go beyond 1850
David

[Chris Dickinson]

Post by David Marshall

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis

Post by David Marshall

Post by David Marshall
Out of 275 GRO format marriage certificates I have obtained, dating
from 1838 to 1963, there is just one which only has a single witness
recorded (in 1882).
Was this legal? Does anyone else have an example?
David

I am pretty sure that only one witness to a wedding is not legal.  A
soldier on active service can make a will without the required
formalities, but I have never heard of the same rule applying to marriages.
Did the other witness sign with a mark (a cross)?

No, it was just left blank.
It was a wedding in a parish church after banns and everything else is
just as would be expected.
David

According to the excellent book by Rebecca Probert, Marriage Law for
Genealogists (2012), failure to comply with the requirement for the
marriage registration to be attested by two witnesses was not one of the
matters stated (in the Marriage Acts 1753 and 1836) to make the marriage
void. Therefore the marriage was valid (see pages 82, 88 and 92 of that
book).
However, if what you have is a certificate provided by the GRO, remember
that this is a copy of the copy sent by the Vicar to the Superintendant
Registrar. Mistakes can happen. It would be worth checking the parish
register to see whether a second witness appears there.

Thank you for that. The marriage was in Ewhurst and so the records ought
to be in the East Sussex Record Office near Brighton. I have not been
able to confirm this from a quick look at their website but if I have
the opportunity to be in the neighbourhood I will check more thoroughly.
David

Now in Brighton & Hove, not in Lewes.

[Charles Ellson]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:28:48 +0100, Chris Pitt Lewis

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis

Post by David Marshall

Post by David Marshall
Out of 275 GRO format marriage certificates I have obtained, dating
from 1838 to 1963, there is just one which only has a single witness
recorded (in 1882).
Was this legal? Does anyone else have an example?
David

I am pretty sure that only one witness to a wedding is not legal.  A
soldier on active service can make a will without the required
formalities, but I have never heard of the same rule applying to marriages.
Did the other witness sign with a mark (a cross)?

No, it was just left blank.
It was a wedding in a parish church after banns and everything else is
just as would be expected.
David

According to the excellent book by Rebecca Probert, Marriage Law for
Genealogists (2012), failure to comply with the requirement for the
marriage registration to be attested by two witnesses was not one of the
matters stated (in the Marriage Acts 1753 and 1836) to make the marriage
void. Therefore the marriage was valid (see pages 82, 88 and 92 of that
book).
However, if what you have is a certificate provided by the GRO, remember
that this is a copy of the copy sent by the Vicar to the Superintendant
Registrar. Mistakes can happen. It would be worth checking the parish
register to see whether a second witness appears there.

With a church marriage, is the local copy a later copy or are both
signed at the same time ?
If the latter then you could also have the scenario of a witness only
signing one of them rather than a failure to copy.