Genealogy Chat

Received a birth certificate today of a great aunt born March 1905 and her parents are recorded as if married yet they didn't marry until December of that year. I think she would have been legitimated by the parents wedding but they would still be lying on the birth certificate wouldn't they. Have other people found this when the parents married a bit late?! All their children were born in Lower Holloway but they gave an address in Clapton Park at their marriage when they married at Hackney Register Office - does anyone know if you needed to be resident in a district for long before you married in a register office? David

I think it depends on whether they were married by licence or by certificate, (it should say on the marriage certificate). I'm not sure which is which but I think one of them you don't need much notice. Sorry, I know this isn't much help. Kath. x

By certificate needs 3 weeks notice, and I think by licence is a couple of days notice.

Thanks both - I've checked and it was by certificate but then 3 weeks isn't very long either:) David

Hmmmm indeed, So they did register births as if married even when they were not. Interesting, as I can`t find my great grandfathers first marriage. I have birth certs for his children so it is possible that he never married her at all. Even her death cert has g grandfather as husband of deseased, and he is stated as widower on marriage cert to my g grandmother.

I've had one instance stated as married and they never married (he stayed married to his real wife until his death) so I can believe others would lie to prevent embarrasment. Jacquie

Carol I've got a few of those too! This is the first generation of the family who bothered to register their childrens births as far as I can see:) David

My great great grandparents certainly did "marry a bit late" as you put it. Their first child was registered in 1842, their ninth in 1860. All certificates showed the parents as married, as did all censuses. They actually married, aged 60, in 1880 as you say Hmmmmmm Judith

Judith I can see why they lied as Jacquie says but it seems a bit odd bothering after all those years! David

Odd indeed! I wonder if one of them wasn't free to marry until a previous spouse died around 1880. Mind you they claimed to be bachelor and spinster so yet more lies if my theory proves correct.

And how many of you had a grandmother like mine, who insisted that they never did things like that in their day. Same grandmother married 4 months before first child was born.

A child would not be legitimised by its parents' subsequent marriage at that date. For a lurid description of what might happen, read No Name by Wilkie Collins. Great great granny was heavily pregnant with her third child before she got married and I'm not at all sure whether either of the earlier ones were her husband's.

Carol My old gran swore that there wasn't much of it about and thought there must be a mistake when I found her grandmother had not been "a young widow" with a child at the time of her marriage! And I since found both my grandmothers were pregnant when they married in the 30s or had very brief pregnancies lol. Brenda Do you know when the law that legitimated children whose parents subsequently married came into effect? David

oh I'm shocked. Nothing like this happens in the movies !! On my g granny & g grandads marriage cert they were both living at the same address. Im sure they had sepparate rooms though !! LOL

A PS to place of residence on marriage certs - on hubbies side lol ! we have a least three couples who all appear to be living either in the same house or the same street a couple of numbers apart. One of these is hubbies mum and dad, married in 1930 - when we asked a rellie where Bevil Street was she replied 'Oh they never lived there' they just happened to want to get married in that particular parish church! Another of the couples married in a Catholic Church and the nearest one was outside their 'home' parish ! So you will find that sometimes the addresses given are purely for convenience..

They may also both claim to live at the actual address of one partner in order to avoid paying for banns to be read in two parishes.

Thank you for that tip regarding addresses at time of marriage - it had never occurred to me before! I have several instances on my mum's side where the bride and groom gave the same address, and she was convinced that those concerned wouldn't have been living together. It makes sense about the banns being read in two parishes. Thanks very much! Mandy :)

My Gt. Grandparents had 13 children, 1st child took mothers maiden name even though same parents, second child took married name even though he was born 3 months after marriage. Andrea

Lying on certificates is something you have to get used to. I innocently accepted a gt-gt-uncle was dead by 1928, as his three children all marked him as deceased on their respective wedding certificates. After years of searching for his death, I discovered through a chance contact on GR that in fact he had walked out on his young family after their mother died and emigrated to Australia. The reward at the end of the story was that his son is still alive in Australia (at a ripe age) and has provided wonderful details of photographs of a family we knew nothing of.

Hi David I was only taught history up to WW1, so there will be others much more likely to know the answer to this, but I think that it was only very recently - ie within the last thirty years - that the law changed. I'd certainly agree with what the rest have said about accomodation addresses. When my brother and his future wife lied about where they were living on their marriage certificate, they were merely continuing a venerable family tradition. Brenda