Fudging the books.....

[MarkCDodd]

I noticed that a couple of marriages I know took place in Roman Catholic churches were listed as Registry Office marriages on the West Midland BMD and Staffordshire BMD sites.

So I asked why and this is the reply,

"Mark

If you go to the coverage pages for Marriages and search for " Xavier "
using your browser search facility (ie "Find on this page") you will find
details about the church and when Marriages started to take place .... you
will see that the date is 1955 ....

Methodist Chapels and RC Churches were NOT licenced places for marriage
before 1898 AND after that date they had to apply to become Registered ...
it would appear that it was 1955 before St Xavier became licenced - up to
then the Registrar would go along to the Unlicenced Church/Chapel with HIS
Register (ie The Registry Office Register) and register the marriage in
this book - This gives the "impression" that the marriage took place at the
Registry Office .... The only Licenced Place for marriage other than an
ANGLICAN Church.

To Summarise .... If the Marriage DIDN'T take place at an ANGLICAN or
Licenced Church then it will be shown as occurring at the "Registry Office"

Regards

Bill"

So now I wonder whAt the legal status of these marriages were?

[Antie Em]

I noticed that a couple of marriages I know took place in Roman Catholic churches were listed as Registry Office marriages on the West Midland BMD and Staffordshire BMD sites.

So I asked why and this is the reply,

"Mark

If you go to the coverage pages for Marriages and search for " Xavier "
using your browser search facility (ie "Find on this page") you will find
details about the church and when Marriages started to take place .... you
will see that the date is 1955 ....

Methodist Chapels and RC Churches were NOT licenced places for marriage
before 1898 AND after that date they had to apply to become Registered ...
it would appear that it was 1955 before St Xavier became licenced - up to
then the Registrar would go along to the Unlicenced Church/Chapel with HIS
Register (ie The Registry Office Register) and register the marriage in
this book - This gives the "impression" that the marriage took place at the
Registry Office .... The only Licenced Place for marriage other than an
ANGLICAN Church.

To Summarise .... If the Marriage DIDN'T take place at an ANGLICAN or
Licenced Church then it will be shown as occurring at the "Registry Office"

Regards

Bill"

So now I wonder whAt the legal status of these marriages were?

Mark, I think it might be the same as when people get married at hotels, which are visited by the registrar.

My son was married a few years ago at Highbury Hall in Moseley, the ancestral home of Joseph Chamberlain (very nice too). The ceremony was carried out by the Birmingham Registrar and the couple had to visit Birmingham Registry office beforehand to fill out the forms. The same happened at my nephew's wedding last year at Hagley Hall, the registrar from Stourbridge officiated at the ceremony.

[MarkCDodd]

Any marriage must be accompanied by the official paperwork.

It appears to me that the English laws licence the place of the ceremony as well as who conducts it.

Different than Australia where the Rabbi/Priest/Chaplain/Father/Celebrant has the authority to witness the signing of the register no matter where the ceremony is held.

Hence my wife and I got married in some gardens in the Dandenongs and could sign the register in front of the Celebrant who conducted the ceremony.

My Brother In Law is getting married next month in his back garden and he can sign the register in front of the Chaplain conducting the ceremony.

No need to visit a registry office beforehand or have a registar attend or visit after.

No need for the ceremony to take place in a "licenced" establishment.

It just seems strange to me but after speaking to a couple of UK cousins, licenced places of marriage are the norm over there.

[peterd]

i think as long as who is conducting the service in this country is a registered registrar then the same applies as what happened in your case, could be wrong ?

[snoopysue]

I know they changes the rules some years ago, so that you could for example get married in a hot air balloon, if you could find someone willing to do the honours! But this was within my lifetime, so exactly how things were when most of the people we're researching goes I'm not sure!
But I would imagine if all the relevant paperwork was done and the registrar was involved then it was okay.
If my memory serves me correctly, if you're Jewish for example, then the rabi will be a licensed registrar now, and the synagogue registered as a place of marriage - but previously there would have been a civil ceremony before the religious one.

[gardener]

I noticed that a couple of marriages I know took place in Roman Catholic churches were listed as Registry Office marriages on the West Midland BMD and Staffordshire BMD sites.


So now I wonder whAt the legal status of these marriages were?

I think that the marriages would be perfectly legal as long as the registrar was there.

After the 1836 Marriage Act it was possible to be married in a registered place of worship in the presence of a registrar and two witnesses. So as long as St Xavier was a registered place of worship then the registrar could turn up at the time of the marriage and it was valid. After 1898 then it was possible for ministers of denominations other than C of E to be authorised persons and then the registrar did not need to be present.

I suppose at that point a church could apply to be licensed for marriages and then they would go down as the place where the marriage took place. It does seem odd that St Xavier did not become licenced until 1955!

Just looking in a book called Succeeding in Family History, it says that a church in Buckinghamshire found out in 1909 that it had never been formally licensed and so 434 marriages had actually not been legal! It took an Act of Pariament to sort that one out!