PDA

View Full Version : Fathers name on a marriage certificate



Kath Betts
03-02-2005, 2:10 PM
Can anyone tell me if you had to produce a birth certificate to get married in 1902?

I have an original marriage certificate for a relative and have just received his birth certificate; this names a different member of the family as his father. I can now see that the father named on the birth certificate died when the child was a year old. If the widow remarried within the brothers or even sons from her husbands previous marriage they could bring up the child with him thinking that his step-father was his real one. Would this not become apparent at the marriage? Would it be illegal to put the wrong details on the marriage certificate or could you put who you like as your father?

Kath

Guy Etchells
03-02-2005, 3:56 PM
No & No
No you did not need to produce a birth certificate to get married in 1902.

It would not be unlawful to give the wrong name when getting married if that is the name of the person you knew as your father.
It would however be illegal to intentionally give the wrong name, I should also point out that until the pasing of the Deceased Brother’s Widow's Marriage Act, 1921 it was illegal for a man to marry his deceased brother's widow.
(1907 for Deceased Wife’s Sister)
Cheers
Guy

Kath Betts
03-02-2005, 4:13 PM
Thank you Guy.

So if I read this correctly she could marry her late husbands son from a previous marriage but not her brother-in-law. I can only assume that marrying her brother-in-law would be considered socialy unacceptable because I can’t think of a reason why it would be so on any other grounds.

If you did not need to produce a birth certificate then I am not sure how you would ever be found out if you chose to use a different name for either yourself or your father.

This gives me plenty to puzzle over!

Kath

Peter Goodey
03-02-2005, 5:21 PM
"I can only assume that marrying her brother-in-law would be considered socialy unacceptable because I can’t think of a reason why it would be so on any other grounds."

I think you're musing about why the law was the way it was?

It's because people used to have ludicrously primitive ideas about genetics. I am led to believe that if you speak to someone who breeds pedigree dogs, you'll hear something very similar.

Genevieve
03-02-2005, 5:33 PM
I have an original marriage certificate for a relative and have just received his birth certificate; this names a different member of the family as his father. I can now see that the father named on the birth certificate died when the child was a year old. If the widow remarried within the brothers or even sons from her husbands previous marriage they could bring up the child with him thinking that his step-father was his real one. Would this not become apparent at the marriage? Would it be illegal to put the wrong details on the marriage certificate or could you put who you like as your father?

Kath

I have a couple of examples like this in one of my lines. I have been told that it can indicate that the individual was brought up by another member of the family e.g. an uncle for whatever reason, father deceased, being 'farmed out' when younger siblings came along etc.

I had not heard before that this would be illegal (per Guy's later post) but I am only a relative beginner.

Kath Betts
03-02-2005, 5:38 PM
Interesting thought. The genetics angle is not something that I have considered.

They seem to rely heavily on honesty and I am beginning to see that because information did not seem to travel very far it can be open to abuse. This could be either unintentional or intentional but it is impossible to find out now. It seems that if you did not fear the law or were ignorant of the facts that you would probably get away with false claims.

Kath

Cornish Maid
03-02-2005, 7:22 PM
Kath


It was not necessarily intention to deceive either. There are many cases of illigitimate children quotig their Grandfathers as their fathers - they may well have believed their GF WAS their father, especially if he brought them up.

They may also have given a relative's name as their father, on their Marriage Cert, to avoid the embarrassment of having to explain to their new relatives that they were in fact illegitimate.

The Church forbade the marrying of a dead wife's sister, or a dead husband's brother because:
The Established Church believes that marriage makes husband and wife "one flesh", therefore your wife's sisters were your sisters too! Any children of such a union were considered, by the Church anyway, to be the product of an incestuous union and this must have caused untold misery down the ages, because undoubtedly men DID marry their dead wife's sister - why not, she was handy and there was a good chance that she would love and cherish her dead sisters children. (But they probably married in a Parish where they were not known).

Finally, there never was and never will be, a way to make human beings tell the truth about things - and you can hardly blame them if they dont actually know what the truth was!

Guy Etchells
03-02-2005, 8:22 PM
I believe our ancestors were well versed in genetics. Most would be from an agricultural background where the subtleties of breeding and inbreeding to accentuate different characteristics in a beast were well understood.
In the same way the hunts used to breed favoured characteristics in hounds.

The proscribed relationships were first set out in the bible (Leviticus Chapter 18 and Chapter 20 over the year these were confirmed and/or added to by the temporal statute of 1536 and the Act of 1650. The table of consanguinity & affinity may be found in the Book of Common Prayer.

The 1949 Act givmessage=I believe our ancestors were well versed in genetics. Most would be from an agricultural background where the subtleties of breeding and inbreeding to accentuate different characteristics in a beast were well understood.
In the same way the hunts used to breed favoured characteristics in hounds.

The proscribed relationships were first set out in the bible (Leviticus Chapter 18 and Chapter 20 over the year these were confirmed and/or added to by the temporal statute of 1536 and the Act of 1650. The table of consanguinity & affinity may be found in the Book of Common Prayer.

The 1949 Act gives a table of those prohibited to marry
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Eframland/acts/1949bAct.htm

Cheers
Guy

Kath Betts
03-02-2005, 9:44 PM
Thank you everyone.

There are a lot of thoughts in the feedback that make sense, but I must admit that I am not that well up on the bible. Considering the influence that the church had/has over society then there is logic in the answers.

One thing about family history is that you learn something all the time!

Kath