Forums Forums Wirral History : Chasing the Past History Information Request Wirral folk using Liverpool churches

I have also come across this with my ancestors from Birkenhead
who were married in St Nicks and often wondered why.

It appears from what little information is available on this subject is that some churches were very lenient towards couples of certain circumstances, with child, without parental approval and runaways, etc. This leniency was not always shown to the inhabitants of Liverpool itself, especially those who would likely be around to answer questions and come under scrutiny. However people traveling to Liverpool to take part in these quick, no questions asked ceremonies did so with the full knowledge of the churches involved that they would return from where they came unlikely to be seen again. The fact that palms may have been greased would have been beneficial that they were not seen again. With evidence of not only couples from Wirral but the four corners of Great Britain travelling to Liverpool to marry I think it proves a no questions asked, no refusal ceremonies took place.

Thanks for all the responses and suggestions. When looking for something else, I’ve come across the following which might be relevant, in the St. Hilary’s Church (Wallasey) parish magazine of 1875:

A CAUTION.

In January a parishioner of Wallasey was married in a church in Liverpool without a license and without publication of banns in the Parish Church. It is necessary, therefore, to draw attention to the fact, clearly enough stated in the Prayer Book, that "when persons that are to be married dwell in divers parishes the banns must be asked in both parishes," unless a license is obtained. The marriage is an illegal act if these rules are not observed; and wilful breach of the law on this subject, or deliberate false statement about residence, &c, renders the offender or offenders liable to be brought before the magistrates, and to be by them committed for trial at the Assizes. It is to be hoped that this caution will be sufficient. The clergy cannot permit the law to be continually broken with¬out seeming in a manner to be parties to this misconduct; although, of course, they do not like to have their parishioners had up to be tried for what is in the eye of the law a felony. The reasons for these regulations are quite plain. If people could get married anyhow without their relatives and friends knowing anything about it, we should soon have a very uncomfortable and awkward state of things in our homes and households. We hope that we shall hear of no more irregularities of this kind in the parish, and that our people will disapprove and hinder so far as they can anything of the kind, if attempted.

It seems that many of our ancestors may have been actively breaking the law by making “deliberate false statements” and it would be interesting to find out if any cases made it to the Assizes. What I can’t work out is how Civil Registration fits in.

It looks like the above is a bit of scaremongering, a last ditch attempt to keep his church actively involved in his parishes marriages. Perhaps our ancestors did stretch the law but whether they were breaking the law is debatable. It seems to me the marriage act of 1836 allowed them to stay within the law providing they had an address within that parish where the banns were being read or a licence applied, hence the reason for many couples living in the same street. The 1836 marriage act also provided couples with marriages away from church or in a church of their choosing, between 1763 and 1836 marriages had to be conducted by a minister and were only recognised as legal if they were carried out by the Church of England,in a church or chapel. I think it would have been very difficult to prove that someone didn't live in a parish were a licence was applied for or banns were read for the short time the law required.

Have been advised the Public Record Office best place to check further but they are closed at present and will re-open in 2013.

Thanks for asking this question and also for the FB link - I didn't know there was such a group.

I know DH has various relatives who married in St. Nicholas' even though they resided on the Wirral but the only one I can find right now is his gt.grandparents who married in 1872. Both said they were living in Richmond Row but all the census returns, certificates etc. have them permanently in Birkenhead. I need to look at the census returns to see if any family member was in Richmond Row.

The bride was 2 months pregnant but there is a chance that they might not even have known at the time of the marriage or maybe the child was born early so I did not feel able to assume that was the cause of hopping over the Mersey.

The bride was 3 years older than the groom and it looks like he lied about his age as their wedding certificate shows him to be older than her. Both were under 21 so maybe that was why they were in Liverpool? The marriage certificate shows both fathers as deceased but I've not been able to find a death for the bride's father so maybe he was alive and opposed it? Banns had been published.

I had just assumed that St. Nicks was a church used by older generations that I had yet to clarify but you have piqued my curiosity more now!