A Family Full of Fischers

In one family, three generations of Fischers have married Fischers.

“It’s a common name,” explains George Fischer, “at least in Germany, it’s a common name.”

“And names run in our families,” adds Katie Fischer (née Fischer). “My mother’s name was Katherine, I’m Katherine and my niece is named Katherine. She’s the other Katherine Fischer who married a Fischer. Also, my father was Joe and so is our son.”

The couple's nephew and niece later married.

“It wasn’t easy convincing the priest,” recalls John Fischer. “Katherine and I had the same last name. George is my uncle and Katie is Katherine’s aunt. We were definitely related, but not by blood. It took some explaining.”

The third generation Fischer to marry a Fischer is Lydia Fischer (grand-daughter to George and Katie) who married Philip Fischer. “He was no relation,” Katie says. “They met when Philip came to the house to do some work.” [Link]

Crazy in Love

From the newspaper archives of Staunton, Virginia:

A.H. McGehee, a patient at Western State Hospital in 1910, fell in love with Alice Lillie, a beautiful female attendant, and she reciprocated. In December, McGehee and Lillie met in Staunton and obtained a marriage license from the city clerk.

"As the clerk does not know a lunatic from anybody else," noted the Staunton Daily Leader, "he issued the license. They hunted up Dr. O.F. Gregory, the obliging pastor of the Baptist Church, who is just as innocent when he sees a lunatic."

The pair were married, but their happiness short-lived. Officials at the hospital quickly found McGehee and hurried him back into custody, ending the romance, while Lillie was summarily discharged from her job. [Link]

She Sure Knows How to Pick 'em

24-year-old Alison Smith wed for the fourth time on Friday.

It was the latest in a bizarre series of marriages for the young mum.

Alison's ex-husbands include a man who eloped with her own mum, a bigamist and a pal who stood in for her fiance when he jilted her the night before the wedding.

Alison was reportedly "delighted" when asked to be a bridesmaid at the wedding of her mother and ex-husband.

But Pat and George's wedding was called off after officials discovered the groom was marrying his mother-in-law, which is against the law.

Staff from Arbroath register office stepped in at the last minute, citing the Marriage Scotland Act 1977, which states that you cannot marry a former spouse's mother unless your former spouse is dead. [Link]

I Hope His Application Wasn't Denied

Ryan Thomas Grace (now a patent attorney) proposed to his girlfriend in 2003 by way of patent application:

40. The method of claim 37 wherein at least one claim of the patent application recites:

“Ellie I've been in love with you for the last five years. I've known this since the day we met and the time we've spent together since that day has only made me realize this fact more. You have been by my side in every way a person could possibly hope and I would like nothing more than to spend the rest of my life with you. Will you please marry me?”

41. The method of claim 37, wherein at least one claim of the patent application recites “Ellie if you will marry me, after reading the remainder of this patent application, open the other envelope and tell the limousine driver to take you to the airport.”

[via Boing Boing]

But They Can Still Date

Preschoolers can no longer marry in Arkansas.

A law that mistakenly allowed anyone — even toddlers — to marry with parental permission was repealed by a measure signed into law Wednesday by Gov. Mike Beebe, ending months of embarrassment for the state and confusion for county clerks.

Lawmakers didn't realize until after the end of last year's regular session that a law they approved, intended to establish 18 as the minimum age for marriage, instead removed the minimum age to marry entirely. An extraneous "not" in the bill allowed anyone who was not pregnant to marry at any age with permission. [Link]

[Thanks, Nancy!]

Marriage Can Be Liberating

No proof has been found, but Conservative MP Boris Johnson insists that his ancestor bought himself a wife.

Mr Johnson says his great-great-grandmother, a Circassian slave from a region in southern Russia, was sold to his great-great-grandfather after she fled from war to Turkey in around 1862.

She was set free only when the couple later married.

Yesterday, Mr Johnson insisted he was the "proud offspring of Turkish immigrants", saying: "This is not in any way casting aspersions on my great-great-grandfather.

"He wasn't a slave owner, he was a slave marrier." [Link]

When Marriage Certificates Lie

Ed and Maryann Covert married on Feb. 29, 1992. But their descendants may have trouble proving it.

“You could get married and the ceremony could be officiated that day by Washington law,” Ed said.

However, “The State of Washington made them declare either the day before or March 1 as their marriage date on their marriage license, as February 29 is not legal to declare in this instance,” explained his mother-in-law, Barbara Newbould, in an e-mail. “They chose March 1.”

Indeed, the Coverts’ wedding invitations say the ceremony is on Feb. 29, but their marriage certificate is dated March 1, 1992.

“It’s easy for me because I only have to remember my anniversary every four years,” Ed joked. [Link]

An Unconventional Naming Convention

It has been established that Marilyn vos Savant is not a genealogist. But I think she has an interesting idea here:

I believe both men and women should keep their premarital surnames throughout life. When they get married and have children, sons would take their father’s surname, and daughters would take their mother’s surname. The benefit to girls and women would be enormous while costing boys and men nothing—except the fun of claiming ownership of the opposite sex! [Link]

I don't know anything about "claiming ownership of the opposite sex" (I only rent). But I wouldn't mind trying genealogy in a society where surnames were traditionally, consistently inherited in this way.

If the practice were longstanding, there presumably would be some surnames exclusively male, and others exclusively female. You would have patronyms (Johnson) and matronyms (Janesdaughter). Depending on how their ancestors divided their labor, surnames derived from occupations might differ: Smith and Nurse might be male and female respectively. A woman who bore a son after a one-night stand might have to decide whether to give the boy her own, female surname. "What was your mother's maiden name?" would be a lousy security question for women. One-name studies would split families apart.

Census records could get convoluted if a husband and wife had children by multiple spouses (sons of former husbands, daughters of former wives, each carrying the surname of an absent parent); but convolution can be good if it offers evidence of prior relationships. I don't think the naming convention vos Savant advocates would cause more problems for genealogists, just different ones. At least there would be far fewer women in my database with the last name "______."

Records of NYC Marriages to Be Destroyed

Manhattan's Marriage Bureau is being relocated, leaving some to wonder what will happen to its graffiti wall.

For decades, Room 262 of the city’s Municipal Building has been a worldwide attraction for couples looking to get married in New York City. Never mind the grim Department of Motor Vehicles-like atmosphere — lack of bathrooms, the poor seating, the unsightly glass partitions and the signature-covered wall where couples leave inscriptions of their eternal love for posterity.

Was the wall going to be moved? Was it going to be painted over? Was it going to be auctioned off? What would happen to all those signatures, those loopy hearts, those couples that would be together 4ever? [Link]

The mayor's spokesman confirmed that, "In effect, the wall will be removed."

Genealogue Challenge #52

Let's start with this article from The New York Times of Sept. 19, 1884:

The gossips of South Oyster Bay and Smithville South, Long Island, are busy discussing the alleged marriage of Conklin Vandewater and Miss Cornelia Mann. Mr. Vandewater, who is 19 years of age, is the son of the late Conklin Vandewater, and when he attains his majority will become the possessor of a moderate fortune. For the past year he has been employed as bookkeeper in a wholesale coal yard in Brooklyn, paying occasional visits to South Oyster Bay to see his mother, who resides a short distance from the village. The villagers noticed that when he went to see his mother he was very attentive to Miss Mann, who always happened to be at the railroad station when young Vandewater alighted from the train. He usually accompanied her home, and, it is said, always kissed her "good-bye" at the gate.

Vandewater was in the village on Sunday, and, in company with other young men, imbibed somewhat freely of Oyster Bay whisky. He left his companions in the evening and called on Miss Mann. He had no recollection of what occurred after, but when he awoke on Monday morning he found the fair Cornelia beside him. He was surprised and asked for an explanation.

"Why, Conkey dear, don't you know that we were married last evening?" and, putting her arms around his neck, she kissed him repeatedly.

Vandewater thought she was joking, but when she exhibited a marriage certificate he thought the thing was getting serious. He left the house and returned to his mother. He stoutly denies that he was married, and says if he was that he must have been drugged. When he left the residence of his alleged wife her mother, Mrs. Mary Jane Mann, followed him and informed his mother of what had occurred. Mrs. Vandewater was thunderstruck and ordered Mrs. Mann out of the house. Mrs. Mann went away, threatening to have Vandewater arrested for abandonment. She has not put her threat in execution.

Miss Mann is a handsome brunette, 17 years of age, and said to a reporter yesterday: "On Sunday Mr. Vandewater, who has been paying attention to me, came to our house and asked me to marry him. I objected at first, but he was so persistent that I finally consented, and we went and got married. That is all there is about it. I know that Conkey loves me, and but for his mother he would be living with me now. But I know he'll come back." The young woman declined to say by whom they had been married. Mr. Vandewater was not at home when the reporter called, and his mother positively refused to speak about the matter. She intimated, however, that if they had been married her son would commence divorce proceedings at once. The villagers are about equally divided for and against the marriage story. A strange feature of the marriage certificate is that Miss Mann will not allow anybody to examine it, nor can she be induced to disclose the name of the clergyman. [Link (pdf)]

The 1900 census reveals that "Conkey" and Cornelia had indeed been joined in marriage.

Who performed the ceremony?

Couple Joined in Acrimony

Eugene J. Mandziuk is suing Diana Lynn Hickson for not really being his wife.

The couple participated in a wedding ceremony in Warren in the summer of 2005 in front of 90 guests.

The Rev. Larry Sullivan signed the wrong line on the marriage license, according to the lawsuit, and Hickson was supposed to correct the oversight.

She never did, the lawsuit says.

Last March, Hickson told Mandziuk about the situation and said she didn't want to live with him any longer, the lawsuit says. [Link]

Mandziuk wants to be compensated for the cost of the wedding ring, as well as the wedding and reception.

They Can't Give Brides Away in Sweden

A priest in Stockholm has refused to honor a bride's request to be given away by her father.

"This symbolizes that the father is the owner of the daughter and that he is giving her away to her new owner," said Rev Eva Brunne, diocesan dean and assistant to Bishop of Stockholm Caroline Krook.

Brunne told The Local that the tradition of giving away a woman was un-Swedish. Traditionally, Swedish couples walk down the aisle to the altar together.

The practice of being given away "only came into our church in the seventies and eighties through American TV shows," she said. [Link]

[Thanks, Nancy!]

He Didn't Know There'd Be a Test

More archival goodness from The New York Times, this time from the Mar. 28, 1886, edition:

THE BRIDEGROOM NOT POSTED.
From the Boston Budget.

A young man in a neighboring city applied recently for a marriage license and the clerk in attendance said in answer to his request, after he had made some other inquiries, "What was the name of the lady's father?" "You've got me there," was the response. "Well, then, what was her mother's name?" "I give it up," was the answer. "You seem to be profoundly ignorant regarding your intended wife's family, but perhaps you'll be communicative enough to tell me the age of the lady you intend to lead to the altar," said the long-suffering registrar. The reply was, "Couldn't, upon my life; I never asked her; she's got red hair." Finally an old acquaintance of the lady came forward and the affair was settled in a short space in a satisfactory manner. [Link (pdf)]

A Do-It-Yourself Marriage Ceremony

This couple invited their friends and family to watch them consummate their marriage.

CURIOUS MARRIAGE CONTRACT

In New-Albany, Ind., last Thursday, a marriage, decidedly out of the usual order, was celebrated between Mr. Gardner Knapp and Miss La Mira P. Hobbs, daughter of Dr. Seth Hobbs, all of that city. When the guests who were bidden had assembled the following written agreement was read and subscribed to by the bridal party, no other ceremony being performed. The parties are Spiritualists:

Friends and Fellow-citizens, Ladies and Gentlemen:
We, Gardner Knapp and La Mira P. Hobbs, believing that our hearts and souls are already matrimonially united, appear before you now, thus publicly to celebrate the consummation of our union. We hold the opinion that neither Church nor State has any moral or equitable right to interfere with, or any just claim to be consulted in reference to, the arrangements that our spontaneous sentiments and sympathies have prompted us to make. Therefore, in non-conformity to, and disregarding the rules and regulations in such cases made and provided by what is called society, we adopt such form and ceremony as in our judgments and consciences seem most just and proper. And now, in the presence of those witnesses and of our invisible spirit friends here assembled, we proclaim, publish, and declare ourselves husband and wife; and may God and the angel world add their blessings. [The New York Times, July 5, 1874 (pdf)]

Maybe They're in the Witness Protection Program

George and Clarissa Vickers want to celebrate their 50th anniversary in the company of complete strangers—specifically, Owen and Mary Coyle, the two strangers they asked to witness their nuptials.

The 18-year-olds were married at the old Preston Register Office by special licence as Clarissa's father wouldn't consent to his daughter marrying a "teddy boy".

But on the day of the nuptials their intended witnesses, George's school friends, were taken ill with flu and were unable to attend.

So the pair were forced to ask total strangers from the street to act as their best man and bridesmaid. [Link]

Robbing the Cradle OK in Arkansas

A bill passed this year in Arkansas allows preschoolers to marry, but only if they bring a note signed by mommy or daddy.

The legislation was intended to establish 18 as the minimum age to marry but also allow pregnant teenagers to marry with parental consent, bill sponsor Rep. Will Bond said. An extraneous "not" in the bill, however, allows anyone who is not pregnant to marry at any age if the parents allow it.

"It's clearly not the intent to allow 10-year-olds or 11-year-olds to get married," Bond said. "The legislation was screwed up."

The bill reads: "In order for a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is not pregnant to obtain a marriage license, the person must provide the county clerk with evidence of parental consent to the marriage." [Link]

[Thanks, Nancy!]

They'll Be Sequestered for the Duration of the Honeymoon

They met last year during a murder trial in New York, and now Traci Nagy (alternate juror No. 3) and Jonathan Cinkay (juror No. 6) are getting married.

They picked up their marriage license last week, and Queens Supreme Court Justice Daniel Lewis, who presided over the case, is to marry them next month.

"Some juries are serious, some are somber, but this jury seemed like it was full of beaming, happy people," the justice said. "I didn't imagine they were all playing matchmaker." [Link]

The defendant was convicted and will not be attending the ceremony.

A Marriage Service for Dumb Lovers

John Cordy Jeaffreson's 1873 book Brides and Bridals tells of a chatty woman and the husband who would never interrupt her.

On the fifteenth day of February, in the eighteenth year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, a singular wedding took place at Leicester between Thomas Filsby, a deaf and dumb man, and Ursula Bridget, a hearing and talkative spinster. The Prayer-book requiring that the promises of marriage should be exchanged in spoken words, the clerical and civil authorities of Leicester were unable to say how the speechless person could be married to his spouse in a satisfactory manner. In their perplexity they applied for instructions to Thomas, Bishop of London, and Commissary John Chippendale, D.D., who disposed of the difficulty by devising a marriage-service for dumb lovers. By their directions the matrimonial rite was performed, and Ursula Bridget made the bride's promises in the usual manner; but the speechless groom declared his desire and purpose by the following signs. Having first embraced Ursula with his arms, he took her by the hand, and put the nuptial ring on her finger. He then laid his right hand significantly upon his heart, and afterwards, putting their palms together, extended both his hands to heaven. Having thus sued for the Divine blessing, he declared his purpose to dwell with Ursula till death should separate them, by closing his eyelids with his fingers, digging the earth with his feet, as though he wished to make a hole in the ground, and then moving his arms and body, as if he were tolling a funereal bell.

It was kind of touching until that last bit.

A November-December Romance

This item appeared in Frank Leslie's Popular Monthly in 1888, written by someone who never knew the love of an 80-year-old woman.

A CURIOUS MARRIAGE ENTRY

The Rev. Brooks Lambert, the Vicar of Greenwich, has disinterred and sent to the London Times a very curious entry in the marriage registers of St. Alphage, Greenwich, under the date November 18th, 1685 :— "John Cooper, of this parish, almsman in Queen Elizabeth's College, aged one hundred and eight years, and Margaret Thomas, of Charlton, in Kent, aged eighty years, by license of ye Lord Bishop of Rochester and leave of ye Governors of ye Draipers' Company."

This marriage must, we should think, have been got up by others than the parties themselves, as a vulgar sort of joke. Even if the ages be a little exaggerated, no sane people of that age would have entered into a tie of this kind on the very brink of the grave. Since the age of Methuselah, there can scarcely have been any such marriage.

Europe's Marriage Mill

Couples from around the European Union—and even American servicemen and women stationed abroad—are flocking to Denmark to get hitched.

"It's not as easy as in Vegas," said a spokesperson for the Danish Ministry of Interior and Health. "But it is easier than other places in Europe."

While nations like France and Germany put up hurdles designed to weed out fake marriages, Denmark requires little more than proof of European residency, a birth certificate and a passport copy, plus 70 euros ($95) for a marriage license. [Link]