Genealogy Chat

Please see below

I have been looking at the marriage records for a parish church where a number of my relations married in the 1780s/90s. At about 1/3 of marriages, one particular man was a witness. In some other cases, another person with the same surname was a witness. They were obviously members of the first man's family as they had the same, very unusual surname. At first I thought that this man was perhaps a Catholic priest or member of the Catholic community who had attended to support the couples who were having to marry in the parish church in order to comply with the law at that time. This area of Lancashire had a very large Catholic population and I recognised his name next to the marriage entries of people whose names I recognised from the Catholic records I have looked at earlier. However, on 'Googling' this man, I have disovered he was the landlord of the inn situated next door to the church. I have heard about 'professional witnesses' but why would couples from very large families, who could each have chosen from a dozen siblings, had the pub landlord as their witness? Any thoughts? PS this was over a period of about 20 years

Until 1898 only Church of England, Jewish and Quaker places of worship were entitled to maintain their own marriage registers. All other non-conformist and Roman Catholic marriages had to be conducted in the presence of a registrar, and are therefore listed as 'Civil Marriages', together with all those conducted at the local register office. I suspect that you assumption the landlord was acting in a ''Professional'' capacity was not a million miles away. Perhaps he made the necessary arrangements with the Registrar to attend and make the ceremony legal and in return got to sign the register.

Thanks for that, Peter and Michael. Michael, do you mean he would have been appointed by their own Catholic church to attend at the parish church or appointed by the parish church? I thought the whole point of Catholics marrying at the parish church was to make the ceremony legal, as the vicar was a person legally authorised to conduct marriage ceremonies. That being the case, why would a registrar or someone acting for a registrar be needed? Wouldn't it be just the same as a C of E couple being married there?

Thanks Michael. That makes sense! regards Amanda

The other possibility I had considered, but which I now feel is less likely than your suggestion and Peter's, is that because marriage in the parish church was a legal necessity, but one which the Catholics concerned felt resentment about having to comply with, the ceremony wouldn't have been much of a celebration and might have felt more like a 'betrayal' of their own faith (religious feeling was obvoiusly stronger two hundred tears ago). Under these circumstances, there may have been an attitude of 'let's go and get it over with' on the couple's part and family members may not have attended. This may have led to the landlord, being a licensee and supposedly upstanding member of the community as well as neighbour of the church, being called on when required, simply to come round to the church and 'do the honours'. Four others with his surname occasionally acted as witnesses, so I think the pub's proximity may have been key.