Would you need a birth certificate to get married in 1880s?

Post by **graleystives** » 18 Apr 2010 10:30

I have been investigating an "black sheep" relative and found out so much more thanks to the help of people on the site.
In brief, Walter Frankish went to jail in the 1870s and then lived with a lady and had several children under assumed names for at least 13 years until they finally married in 1896.
I was wondering about why they did not marry - especially as they eventually did. Would you need to show a birth cert to get married? In which case they may not have been able to marry as they were living under a false name (Roseby on 1891 census) However that doesnt explain why they did finally marry!

Many thanks!

Post by **Hilary** » 18 Apr 2010 11:08

No birth certificate needed - no checks would have been made

Maybe they didn't wish to marry
She was already married
He was already married
They didn't wish to draw attention to themselves

Hilary
Ed Officer

Post by **dickiesam** » 18 Apr 2010 12:47

Education Officer wrote:No birth certificate needed - no checks would have been made

Maybe they didn't wish to marry
She was already married
He was already married
They didn't wish to draw attention to themselves

Hilary
Ed Officer

Hilary's response is mine exactly. Because they finally did marry, it points to at least one of them being already married and the 'other' spouse eventually dying.

Got two instances with my lot. A g.g.father and mother waited 32 years until his wife passed, and a g.father 21 years! And they both had children in the 'waiting' time. In the first case both were Irish who came to Liverpool in the mid 1870s with 6 children. I had Irish birth certs for the latter but couldn't find a marriage. I eventually found a marriage, by accident, in the Liverpool Registry Office in 1885. But why marry then? Took another 8 years to discover, with the help of a researcher, that the husband had married in Ireland in 1853 and this wife passed in 1884!

Dickiesam

Post by **MaryA** » 18 Apr 2010 18:14

Even in an RC church, the only documentation would probably have been a Baptism Certificate, it is still requested today I believe.

I believe the number of incorrect ages given on marriages would confirm that a birth certificate wasn't required.

Post by **kwr** » 19 Apr 2010 09:52

Agree with the others. I have two instances of girls marrying and simply stating they were of full age. Both, according to the copies of birth certificates, were in fact only 16 and both had babies which were shall I say, premature. One was an illegal marriage - she married her uncle!

Ken