Docquet vide infra on a marriage cert

[redted]

I have just viewed a marriage certificate relating to a marriage which took place on 3 March 1900 Aberdeen.

It is a standard certificate with the marriage of interest completed in the top section.

The second section however has the above latin phrase and is signed by the Registrar.

On Google I have found that "vide infra" appears to translate as "see below"

and I always thought that a "docquet " was another word for a label or ticket (ie. a small document).

I also found one other query on roots web which suggested that the phrase was used when changing from the last entry in a year prior to moving to a new register for the following year, but that doesn't seem to fit with the March date on this example anyone any ideas?

PS
Having re-examined the certificate I have realised the March marriage was actually the first for the register of the Parish .... number 1 in the left hand column ...ie. DRUMBLADE /ABERDEEN 188/00 0001

Is it possible that there were so few marriages in the Parish that this was the only one that year ..??

[Currie]

Hello Redted,

I have a certificate for a 10th August, 1928, marriage in Perthshire – 369/00 0001, marriage No. 1 on Register page 1. There’s the same “Docquet vide infra” entry in the space for marriage No. 2. I’ve no idea why but perhaps it was a standard procedure.

Alan

[redted]

Hi Alan

Thanks for replying.

It looks as though the post i found on rootsweb may have been correct ... I haven't come across this before, where a parish has so few marriage entries, so i guess that is the reason, but if anyone can shed some light on it that would be great !!

[Currie]

Hello Redted,

If you go to advanced marriage search at SP and in the GROS data box put:

188/00 0001 = 109 results
188/00 0002 = 86
188/00 0003 = 59
188/00 0004 = 45
188/00 0005 = 41
188/00 0006 = 25
188/00 0007 = 16
188/00 0008 = 11
188/00 0009 = 9
188/00 0010 = 5
188/00 0011 = 3
188/00 0012 = 3

Given that Statutory marriages is 1855-2009 (154 years) does that mean that for 45 of those years there were no marriages at all and the most marriages in any one year was 12 and that happened three times?

It seems a bit of a waste of registers.

Alan

[redted]

Hi Alan

I haven't used the new advanced searches but it does seem strange ... I am now off to do some tinkering with the search .. ;o)

RT

[redted]

Hi Alan

I can confirm that using the advanced search tool(thanks for the tip) and restricting the search to 1900 and the GROS data 188/00 0002 for the Parish of Drumblade in Aberdeen

results as no matches, likewise with 0003, 0004 etc so I think it is safe to assume the Parish must be fairly small and the "Docquet vide infra" represents the end of that years registered marriages etc...!

[Currie]

Hello Redted,

That looks to be the case.

The word “docquet” appears only twice in UK registration and census legislation, both in relation to introduction of Scottish statutory registration. Here’s something from the original 1854 legislation. In the 1855 amendment I think there’s something about change in procedures and responsibilities. http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/Sea ... titlepos=0

“LIII. All the Registers hereby appointed to be kept shall be kept in Duplicate, and such Duplicates shall be paged continuously alike, and each Page shall be authenticated by the Sheriff affixing his Initials before Delivery thereof to the Registrars, and the Contents of each Page of such Duplicate Register Books shall be the same, and each Page shall be signed by the Registrar; and in the First Week of August in each Year, on such Day as shall be fixed by the Sheriff, the Duplicate Register Books for the preceding Year ending on the Thirty-first Day of December shall he taken by the Registrar to the Sheriff, by whom, along with the Registrar, the same shall be carefully examined and compared, and a Docquet shall be added at the End of each Duplicate, stating the Examination and Accuracy thereof, the Number of Pages, and any marginal Additions or Erasures appearing on either Duplicate, so as to preclude the Possibility of Interpolation, and such Docquet shall be signed by the Parties examining the Duplicates; and One of such Duplicates shall be retained by the Registrar, and the other shall be transmitted by the Sheriff to the Registrar General on or before the Thirty-first Day of August in each Year; and the Sheriff when transmitting such Duplicate shall report any Circumstance relating to the Registers to which he may think the Attention of the Registrar General ought to be called.”

All the best,
Alan

[AndrewP]

Hello Redted,

If you go to advanced marriage search at SP and in the GROS data box put:

188/00 0001 = 109 results
188/00 0002 = 86
188/00 0003 = 59
188/00 0004 = 45
188/00 0005 = 41
188/00 0006 = 25
188/00 0007 = 16
188/00 0008 = 11
188/00 0009 = 9
188/00 0010 = 5
188/00 0011 = 3
188/00 0012 = 3

Given that Statutory marriages is 1855-2009 (154 years) does that mean that for 45 of those years there were no marriages at all and the most marriages in any one year was 12 and that happened three times?

It seems a bit of a waste of registers.

Alan

Hi Alan,

Registration District number 188 was used from 1855 to 1967, 113 years inclusive. On that basis there were 4 years with no marriages in that district. I suspect there will still be both copies of the register for these years showing that no marriages were registered there in these years.

Doing the arithmetic on your figures above:

• 4 years had no marriages
  23 years had 1 marriage
  27 years had 2 marriages
  14 years had 3 marriages
  4 years had 4 marriages
  16 years had 5 marriages
  9 years had 6 marriages
  5 years had 7 marriages
  2 years had 8 marriages
  4 years had 9 marriages
  2 years had 10 marriages
  0 years had 11 marriages
  3 years had 12 marriages
  0 years had more than 12 marriages
  total=113

After 1968, Drumblade seems to have been absorbed into Huntly registration district.

All the best,

AndrewP

[redted]

After 1968, Drumblade seems to have been absorbed into Huntly registration district.

All the best, AndrewP

I guess it is no great surprise it was absorbed into another district with such sparse requirement of the registers!!

Thanks again

[Currie]

Thanks for that Andrew.

All the best,
Alan