- From: "JFHHgen" <johnfhhgen@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 22:08:13 -0000
----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Chambers" <anne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Same for marriage - when *proof* of age was required (i.e. in the
20th century, see the Marriage Act of 1949, maybe earlier) she would use the surname she was registered under,
otherwise it could be either.> > -- > Anne Chambers> South Australia
No proof of age required, AFAIK, though recently proof of identity has begun to be demanded in Register Offices.
"8. No clergyman shall be obliged to publish banns of matrimony unless the persons to be married, at least seven days before the date on which they wish the banns to be published for the first time, deliver or cause to be delivered to him a notice in writing, dated on the day on which it is so delivered, stating the christian name and surname and the place of residence of each of them, and the period during which each of them has resided at his or her place of residence"From the marriage Act, 1949 -
For marriage on Suprintendent Registr's Certificate -
"(3) A notice of marriage shall state the name and surname, marital status, occupation and place of residence of each of the persons to be married and the church or other building in which the marriage is to be solemnized and (a) in the case of a marriage intended to be solemnized without licence, shall state the period, not being less than seven days, during which each of the persons to be married has resided in his or her place of residence ;"
Nor was proof required -
"48.-(I) Where any marriage has been solemnized under the provisions of this Part of this Act, it shall not be necessary in support of the marriage to give any proof-
(a) that before the marriage either of the parties thereto resided, or resided for any period, in the registration district stated in the notice of marriage to be that of his or her place of residence ;
(b) that any person whose consent to the marriage was required by section three of this Act had given his consent ;
(c) that the registered building in which the marriage was solemnized had been certified as required by law as a place of religious worship ;
(d) that that building was the usual place of worship of either of the parties to the marriage ; or
(e) that the facts stated in a declaration made under subsection (I) of section thirty-five of this Act were correct ;
nor shall any evidence be given to prove the contrary in any proceedings touching the validity of the marriage.
(2) A marriage solemnized in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act in a registered building which has not been certified as required by law as a place of religious worship shall be as valid as if the building had been so certified."
[Courtesy of Guy Etchells site -
- Re: stepfathers
- From: Anne Chambers
- Re: stepfathers
- Prev by Date: Fw: full birth registered name for a marriage record? WilliamorThomas William LEE?
- Next by Date: Re: Check on a FMP 1911 image please
- Previous by thread: Re: stepfathers
- Next by thread: Re: stepfathers