Marriage Certificate Witnesses. How Many?

[macwil]

Just discovered a relative's marriage, in Bayton PR (Worcestershire Archives), with six, yes SIX, witnesses signing.

Does anyone have more?

[Peter Goodey]

I think Quaker marriages had at least twelve witnesses.

[macwil]

Really?
I've not come across Quaker Marriage Certs. All mine are C of E.
Does that mean the certs. are significantly different to/larger than the standard issued by the GRO?

EDIT: Answered my own question.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker_wedding

Quaker marriages in England and Wales have two marriage certificates:

Quaker marriage certificate – this is a large document which sets out the couple's names, the procedure they have followed and the declarations made. This is signed by the couple themselves, and by all who were present at the meeting for worship for solemnisation of their marriage. This is a requirement of Britain Yearly Meeting and is kept by the couple themselves, however is not normally recognised by any organisation outside of the Religious Society of Friends.
Quaker civil marriage certificate – this is the certificate recognised by the government, and also recognised by institutions such as banks. It is completed by the Registering Officer of the Area Meeting in which the marriage is taking place, and signed by the couple and four witnesses. It is similar in format to the marriage certificate of the Church of England or a civil wedding, although of a specific design stating that the marriage took place "according to the usages of the Society of Friends".

Quakers decided to offer marriage on an equal basis to same sex couples in 2009. Same sex marriage was recognized in law in 2014 in England and Wales and is under consideration in Scotland.

[AntonyMMM]

I have an example with six, and one with eight (both C of E church weddings)

There is no limit to how many, other than the practical issue of space in the register for their signatures. The rules just say you have to have a minimum of two - there is no minimum age, and they don't have to know or have any connection to the couple, just witness the vows being taken, be able to understand what they are witnessing and give evidence of it in the future if required (although as their contact details aren't recorded I'm not sure how that might work in some cases !)

[Peter Goodey]

Does that mean the certs. are significantly different to/larger than the standard issued by the GRO?

I had in mind pre-1837 records.

[macwil]

I had in mind pre-1837 records.

Sorry Peter. Never thought to mention the date 1954.
I hoovered up all the records I could find relating to the family whilst I was at the Archives. (They dated from 1792 to 1950s in several parishes.)
Just been reviewing them.

I've got to go back for even more, when I've sorted this lot and recovered.

[emmteeyess]

I have an example with six, and one with eight (both C of E church weddings)

There is no limit to how many, .... - there is no minimum age, and they don't have to know or have any connection to the couple, ...

I've been browsing thru some marriages for Monkwearmouth CofE Parish (now inc in Sunderland) and came accross an entry with 6 witnesses. It's the only one in the year (1834) with more than two but doesn't seem special in any other way. Guess they just wanted to involve extra friends and family in their vows. (Two with groom's surname, three with bride's surname and one other).

As regards witnesses not having a connection to the couple - I had a marriage in my family in 1880 with a witness who's surname could have been a family member, but I couldn't pin her down. Then I noticed that she was on other pages and a quick scan found her witnessing 6 marriages over a couple of years.
I did try to find her on the 1881 census but couldn't be sure I'd found her. I can only speculate why she was always 'handy' or called upon as a witness - a dressmaker was one option.
Intruguing but I've got more pressing matters to research!

Cheers, MTS

[macwil]

. . . I can only speculate why she was always 'handy' or called upon as a witness - a dressmaker was one option.
. . .

I presume you are referring to a needlewoman rather than the census' euphemism.
Can you imagine the reactions if it was the latter?

Regards
Malcolm.

[Peter Goodey]

I presume you are referring to a needlewoman rather than the census' euphemism.

Oh for goodness sake, that old chestnut again. Dressmaker meant dressmaker.

In one case where it was known from other sources that the address was a brothel, it was observed that the inmates were listed as dressmakers. That does not mean that dressmaker was a common euphemism for prostitute.

[Lesley Robertson]

It’s always a good idea to specify year, denomination and country on such questions. Some of the scots nonconformists churches just say “in front of the congregation” on pre-1855 marriages and baptisms, for example.