Citing a UK Certified Copy of an Entry of Marriage

By Anonymous on Thu, 12/08/2016 - 08:20

Forums

I hope this won't come across as a stupid question, but I have a document that is not quite fitting into a citation format.  It is a Certified Copy of an Entry of Marriage.  My father was married to his first wife in 1943.  It was a civil ceremony.  The record is a vital record of marriage, but not a parish marriage certificate as was issued in a church.  The marriage was solomnized in The Registry Office for the Maidstone Registry District in Kent County.

The document contains most of the information that a parish certificate would have except that it was not a church record.  It also has much more information, including the actual date of the marriage, than the UK indexes have.

Any suggestions on how to properly cite this are appreciated.

Thanks!

Geoff Cooker

Submitted byEEon Thu, 12/08/2016 - 10:28

Geoff, check out EE 9.48 (pp. 474-75 in 3d ed.). This covers UK B-M-D certificates--which are typically certified copies.

Submitted byCurtisk2on Wed, 01/12/2022 - 12:54

Hi, just come across this post and decided it would be best to ask for clarification here instead of creating a new topic. 

Does the below citation look correct and am I missing anything?


Footnote: England, marriage certificate (certified copy) for George William Whitehouse, married 8 April 1944; registered April quarter 1944, Birmingham District 6d/91, All Saints Sub-district, Warwickshire; General Registry Office, Southport.

Short footnote: England, marriage certificate (certified copy), George William Whitehouse, April quarter 1944, Birmingham District 6d/91.

Bibliography: England. Registrar General. Marriage Certificates. General Registry Office, Southport.


I wasn't sure whether I had to include the Wife's name and how that would look?


 

Submitted byEEon Thu, 01/13/2022 - 08:39

Curtisk, yes, both spouses should be identified. As our research continues, we find a surprising number of cases in which there are multiple marriage records, even on the same day, for same-name men. Or else one element in a record or a citation errs and without the omitted person's name the record is not relocatable. Or else, there's a problem with the name of one of the spouses, as given in the record, and the researcher is trying to mask that problem in the citation. Or ...

I should clarify one other point while we're at it. I try to answer all questions in this forum, as time allows. But I don't "approve" citations. For me to "approve" a citation, telling you that everything you've written is correct, I would have have to examine the record (and the online database when the record is online) to determine whether there are quirks that need to be covered and whether everything has been extracted correctly. Otherwise, I end up in a regrettable situation in which a student tells their prof or a genealogist tells there cousin "But this citation was personally approved by the author of EE." 

Meanwhile, there's just one of me and millions of researchers trying to cite their sources. I don't and can't offer a citation construction or approval service. I answer specific questions about Evidence Style citations and try to help users who do not understand a specific record. When those questions are posed, it helps if the EE user will also cite the section of EE that they have studied.

 

Thanks EE. I appreciate the helpful response and honesty. 

I completely understand. I've since looked back at my initial comment to this topic and now realise I was expecting a "done for you" citation...which of course wouldn't help me in the long term.

Of course, I want to learn how to tackle every document I come into contact with and I can only do that by having an understanding of the citation I'm writing. 

Going forward, I will only post on this forum if I've exhausted my resources.