AUS-VIC-L Archives

Archiver > AUS-VIC > 2001-07 > 0995099432


From: "Karen Semken" <>
Subject: Re: [AUS-VIC] Marriage Rites/Religion in Victoria
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:30:32 +1000
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010712132453.00a0da00@pop3.norton.antivirus>


Ada,

Thank you for your wonderful reply - & the detailed information is very
appreciated. This is the kind of insight, that otherwise, I may have never
come across - so I think it's fantastic.

The Moor St., marriage was my ggrandmother who was Cof E, born Birmingham (&
I suspect under the age of 21, though she is recorded as 23 yrs), and my
ggrandfather who was Catholic, born in Scotland.

The Queen St., marriage was the marriage of another ggrandfather (who was
Presb., born Scotland) to his 1st wife. BDM records show they had 9 children
together. But they didn't get married until after (all) these children were
born. The marriage certificate states he is a widow, and she is a spinster -
neither with any previous children. This one is a real mystery for me! You
may also be NOT surprised to hear, that yes - the witnesses to the marriage
were a James & Ann Holt, as were the other 2 marriages recorded on the
schedule.

Once again, many thanks, Karen


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ada Ackerly" <>
To: "Karen Semken" <>; <>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [AUS-VIC] Marriage Rites/Religion in Victoria


At 22:56 11-07-01 +1000, Karen Semken wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I have two sets of relatives who married in Victoria. I gained the
>information below from both marriage certificates. However,
>I am not familiar with the church/religion details recorded, and I'm
>hoping someone may be able to shed some light on this
>or point in the direction of any reference material.

Hello Karen

>1st couple - married 1892, at Moor Street, Fitzroy, by "Rites of the
>Victorian Free Church"

And you received a reply,
Hallo Karen,
I think from memory my wifes grandfather was marriedin
the same church Moor St Fitzroy 1889 . now was the marrying minister a
Nathaniel Kinsman?? Because i was told by a high profile historian from
Melbourne that he was a "rogue" minister, marrying anyone that came up with
the fee etc regardless of the fact that the couple were obviously under
age,etc, apparently there was a lot of doubt as to whether he was a "dinki
di" minister
Good luck, happy hunting
Brian Johnson

And now my sixpennyworth:

Well, originally Nathaniel Kinsman was a minister of the "Victorian Free
Church of England and Ireland" and his original congregation would have
needed to record their allegiance to the church and declare him as their
minister in order for him to gain a licence to marry. Over several years,
about 1852 to about late 1860s there were several congregations under the
banner, some up-country. By the 1880s, however, Nathaniel was the only
surviving minister & church.

Here is the text of part of a talk I gave recently:

" Over the past twenty years, as I have been doing research for other
people, then, for the last ten years, working through the Supreme Court
case files in the Equity Jurisdiction, I have been struck by the frequency
of the appearance of the name: Rev Nathaniel KINSMAN and his
church/marriage bureau.

First, as a local historian for Williamstown, I was struck by the number of
mixed marriages (R.C. plus Protestant) which had taken place at the
"Victorian Free Church of England and Ireland" Moor Street Fitzroy
officiated over by the Rev Nathaniel Kinsman.

Then I was surprised to find that when local widows or widowere remarried
in his church, they were always spinsters and batchelors, with no children.
As one of my lads had 8 children and his bride had 4, I came to the
conclusion that few questions were asked before the ceremony.

Then I found that a Nathaniel Kinsman had applied for an auctioneer's
licence. Not the same lad, surely? But yes. Nathaniel would leave his
auctioneer's showroom, walk through the connecting door to his "church" and
there perform the marriage ceremony. It was said that all the brides
received a small photo of the Rev with the information on his church and
marriage bureau printed on the back. I have never seen such a photo.

And I was recently shown a marriage certificate where the mothers of the
bride & groom said their husbands were dead, and gave permission for an
under age marriage. Except that the father of the bride was still alive
many years later and still living in the family home with his wife. And the
other "mother" was not a mother, so committed forgery with the signature.
However, this couple stayed married, and the legality was never challenged.

A perusal of Divorce files shows that Nathaniel's couples form a large
block of applicants and his name turns up fairly often in Equity case files
and Habeas Corpus case files, so many of them involving broken marriages
and arguments over offspring."

Of course, this is no criticism of himself or his church, people not
compatible will separate no matter where they are married.

>2nd couple - married 1904, 448 Queen Street, Melbourne, by the "Free
>Christian Church Rites"

Advertisement, "Age" Oct 25 1901

"Marriages celebrated by ordained clergymen, with due solemnity, in
strictest privacy, at Holt's Matrimonial Agency, 448 Queen Street,
Melbourne, opposite the old cemetery, or elsewhere, from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.
daily, Saturdays included. (no notice required).

Fee ten shillings and sixpence; or marriage, with guaranteed gold wedding
ring and necessary witnesses provided, £1 one shilling P.S. - No other
charges whatsoever. All sizes, more costly wedding rings kept in stock if
required."

Advertisement (same day)
"Ladies, gentlemen, every station in life, contemplating matrimony,
immediately consult proprietors of Holt's New Matrimonial Chambers, 448
Queen Street Melbourne, opposite the Old Cemetery, specially erected by the
proprietors for introductions, costing £4,000. (Established 1886).
Introductions privately arranged between elligible partners, either sex,
with view to matrimony. Only letter containing stamp for reply answered.
All communications treated confidentially, and managed solely by the
proprietors, thereby ensuring strictest privacy. Holt's "Matrimonial
Gazette" containing particulars of a number of our available clients, modus
operandi, etc., forwarded to any address, in plain envelope, upon receipt
of a twopenny stamp."

James Holt and his wife Annie were usually the "witnesses provided"

There was an article in "Ancestor" about ten years ago titled "James Holt".
His agency etc seemed to have been a well-run organization, and he seemed
to be able to supply clergy of quite a number of denominations, so that the
address (and possibly the witnesses) are the only clue to Holt's Agency.

The use of an agency such as the two above, simply may mean the desire for
privacy, perhaps no particular allegiance to a denomination. The names of
the witnesses will show you if any family or friends were present and
involved.

I wouldn't put too much store on opinions on either agency, it was the love
and wholesome intent of the couple that was important.

Still, whether you wanted all the above or no, there it is!


regards,
Ada Ackerly, Melbourne, Australia
formerly Ackerly DocuSearch



This thread: