One of my DNA cousins – now a good friend – was bridesmaid recently for her sister. The wedding was very low key – so low key in fact that my cousin’s first task was to wander around on the day to find a second person to witness the marriage. Astonishingly, the person she found was not only the doppelgänger for the bride’s daughter (who lives on the other side of the planet), but also had almost exactly the same surname as the maiden name of the bride and bridesmaid – just one letter out, and in fact the ‘usual’ spelling of that surname.

Of course, after wishing the bride and groom well and congratulating my cousin for an excellent job as bridesmaid, my pressing thoughts were for future generations who would see the photos and believe the witness was the daughter; then see the witness signature, become confused and finally assume she was another family member from the bride’s paternal line. Pity the genealogists of the future who will work back many versions of this ancestral line, certain they must have missed something, and starting again from scratch…!

It was the 1753 Marriage Act (also referred to as the Hardwicke Act, since it was promoted by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hardwicke) that introduced, amongst other things, the requirement for at least two witnesses to be present at the marriage ceremony. From the year of the implementation of that Act in 1754 you’ll see the printed forms, three to a page, and including space for signatures of the bride, groom and witnesses. The later format, with two marriages to a page, commenced in July 1837.

The essential role of the witnesses was and remains to be present for the declarations and vows, and to witness the bride, groom and officiant signing the wedding certificate. Of course, back in 1754 the officiant was the parish priest. The only exceptions to this were for Jews and Quakers, who were allowed to conduct marriages in their own places of worship and with their own officants. Since 1837 there have been other possibilities.

As evidenced by the wedding of my distant cousin, it’s not necessary for the bride or groom to know the people acting as witnesses. They don’t require identification. The only requirements are that each witness can speak English sufficiently to understand the ceremony; and has the mental capacity to understand what’s taking place. However, even that is not set down in legislation.

So that’s the rules. Now let’s think about how we can use witnesses in our research. They are an often-overlooked piece of information; yet at the very least they can add colour to our knowledge of family, kinship and friendships. We’ll start with the more straightforward ideas and progress to more advanced levels of genealogy.

Recent generations: matching signatures to photos
Starting with more recent generations, this is when marriages had become something to celebrate, often with bigger, family affairs. Often it was the best man and maid of honour/ chief bridesmaid who were witnesses, although not necessarily. If we’re lucky we might have a photograph to put faces to the names, or if we know all the faces, to compare who seems to have what role in the photo and on the paperwork. Looking at my own parents’ marriage certificate (and the photos) I see my uncle and a friend of my mum’s who remained a lifelong friend of the family – I knew her well. As well as being witnesses and best man/ maid of honour, they would also go on to be two of the godparents for my older brother. For my paternal grandparents the witnesses are the bride’s brother (my great uncle) and a friend of the bride – again a name I recognise as being a lifelong friend of my grandmother, but she was not one of the bridesmaids. My maternal grandparents chose the bride’s sister and a name I don’t know, but presumably a friend of my granddad. In these situations there may be little ‘research’ to be done, but it’s interesting to see who they chose, and to compare with the photos.

Some witnesses are ‘regulars’
For older marriages, often siblings or parents are witnesses. However, sometimes, when you look through a marriage register, it becomes clear that one or even both of the witnesses was a ‘regular’, witnessing quite a few of the marriages. Once we realise that, we know we needn’t bother to try to research that person’s involvement with the family.

Why would the couple turn up for church with just one witness? Well, just like our modern day couple at the top of this post, what was important to them was the marriage contract. For our modern couple it was a personal affair and they were happy to keep it that way; for couples in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries there simply wasn’t the tradition of big, showy weddings.

Sometimes, though, we can read between the lines and see a bigger reason.

Elopement
James and Annie Elizabeth married in 1866. Both gave their age as 18, but in truth Annie Elizabeth was not quite 15½. Although marriages under the age of 21 were legal, they could only take place with the express permission of the bride’s and/or groom’s parents. Presumably, neither James nor Annie Elizabeth had this parental permission. Effectively it was an elopement. The one witness they had for the ceremony was James’s older sister, Mary Elizabeth. The other was the parish ‘regular’ witness. We might understand that Mary Elizabeth thought eighteen was an acceptable age, and can only guess at how she might have responded if she knew Annie Elizabeth was only fifteen!

Comparing signatures
If you can access an image of the actual register present at the event you’ll see the actual signatures of the bridge, groom and witnesses. Even if some of the various parties couldn’t sign, they might have had their own quite unique mark. You then have an additional layer of evidence – an actual signature that you can compare with other documents where the same person has signed. By ‘actual register’ I mean a digital image of the one the parties actually signed. Clearly, this is not a transcript; but equally it is not the copy of a post-1837 Marriage Certificate you’ll get from the General Register Office: they are contemporary copies of the original. Parish Registers are often available online via subscription website or at the Record Office on microfilm. If your ancestors married at the Register Office you would need to speak to the local Registrar’s Office to find out what they have.

For older marriages, often witnesses were siblings or parents
Here’s an example of this from a piece of research I’m currently working on. There are two women with the same surname. Sarah is the focus of the research. We have the 1815 baptism and therefore parents’ names of Margaret, but not for Sarah. Both sisters will go on to baptise their children into the Methodist tradition. However, the local Methodist registers commence the year before Margaret’s baptism but after the year consistent with Sarah’s age on the censuses. If we can prove that Sarah and Margaret are sisters, then we will have Sarah’s parents. There are several pieces of information that suggest familial ties. These include Margaret’s mother’s name, which also is Sarah; Methodism; the common place of worship; the physical proximity of Sarah after marriage, to Margaret and to Margaret’s father. However, the starting place for all this pondering, and perhaps the most important piece of the jigsaw is that Margaret was one of the witnesses to Sarah’s marriage, indicating a close connection of some kind, even if we don’t yet know for sure precisely what that connection is.

A witness who connects two generations
Benjamin was transported to Van Diemens Land in 1834, and died there in 1841. He was a widower when he was transported, and left behind two teenage boys: James and Samuel,. Documents created upon arrival in Hobart indicate that he was very worried about their well-being. Following through on the boys, I found a possible marriage for James – although he was only seventeen at the time. It was one of the witness signatures that reassured me that this was the right James. John Marshall, who had witnessed Benjamin’s marriage eighteen years earlier, was now witnessing Benjamin’s son James’s marriage. This also suggests, perhaps, that John Marshall kept a watchful eye on the boys after their father’s departure.

So these are some of the ways we can make use of witness names and signatures. If you’re at an early stage in your genealogy research, I hope you’ll now take note of these names whenever you find a marriage. They could be important somewhere down the line! If you’re at a more advanced stage… do you have any examples to share of how witnesses have helped progress your research? If so, please let us know in the comments.