Who would have thought that a 1901 marriage certificate, a witness, and a Google search would open up an investigation into marriage agencies in Sydney, Australia?
My great-grandmother, Annie, married Daniel in Sydney in 1901. The certificate states they were married at the REORGANISED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. Witnesses to the marriage were Edith Carolus and Joice Jones, and the presiding Minister was John Keler.
The bride and groom were of the Church of England faith, so why did they choose the Latter Day Saints church to marry in? And did their choice have anything to do with Daniel’s subsequent marriage to someone else, a year later, in another country? Was Daniel a bigamist or polygamist?
To clear up any confusion around polygamy among Mormons, Mr Keler, in January 1899, provided a lengthy discourse to Sydney newspapers regarding the matter. The article suggests that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, believed that man should have but one wife except in the case of death, a belief that was continued by Joseph’s two oldest sons. Brigham Young, the second President of the Mormon Church, apparently espoused the practice of polygamy and supposedly had a total of fifty-six wives.
When I ordered a transcript of my great-grandparents’ marriage certificate, it presented more questions than the answers I had hoped for.
1901 Marriage at 471 Pitt Street Sydney
The address of the church on the marriage certificate of my great-grandparents, Annie and Daniel, sent me scurrying off to Google Maps to see if 471 Pitt Street Sydney was still a Mormon Church. I imagined being able to walk down the same aisle that Annie walked when she married Daniel, all those years ago.
As I scrolled through the list of Google-based links, the heading on a document caught my attention. Surprisingly, it was a letter of complaint to the Sydney Council, dated 1899, on behalf of the World’s Matrimonial Association at 471 Pitt Street, Sydney. The muddy condition of Pitt Street in the wet season was apparently ruining bride’s dresses as they arrived at the establishment for their pending marriage.

It seems mud wasn’t the only complaint the council received about the condition of Pitt Street. In December 1895, J. W. E. George wrote to the then Mayor of Sydney, bemoaning the dusty condition of the road at 471 Pitt Street, and the conspicuous absence of the watercart to settle the dust.

Theophilus Carolus was the manager of the matrimonial agency in question, and seemingly, agencies like the one on Pitt Street were common at that time. Theophilus’ wife, Edith Carolus, served as a witness to marriages devoid of family and/or friends to perform the said duty.
In November 1900, Theophilus Carolus attempted to justify the position of matrimonial agencies in a letter to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. Theo’s letter suggested that marriages conducted through agencies might otherwise have been refused by traditional churches and would have cost significantly more than through the agency. Mixed religion was also cited as a reason couples engaged an agency to solemnise their marital union rather than in a traditional church.
Theo noted that 85% of the marriages conducted through his agency were for ‘legitimising’ unborn children. A range of interesting statistics accompanied the letter, highlighting the number of marriages, divorces, and cases of bigamy across a six-year period.
“A quid a nob with witnesses thrown in” is how Theo’s agency was described in a newspaper report a few years later.
Despite Theo’s admirable sense of civic duty, his reputation as a ‘colourful character’ did not go unnoticed in the press of the day. In June 1903, Theo’s alleged use of indecent language on a city street brought him before Mr Smithers S.M at the Central Police Court, who luckily for Theo, dismissed the charge.
A problem solved?
My great-grandmother had a toddler from her ongoing relationship with Daniel, and was pregnant with my grandmother on her wedding day, so a marriage agency was probably the only option for her. The discovery of my great-grandparents’ marriage certificate answered the ‘where’ and ‘why’ questions about their choice of church. Marriage in a traditional church would no doubt have raised more than a few eyebrows if it were allowed at all.
And who would have thought that marriage agencies were commonplace in the year of our nation’s Federation in 1901, the year of my great-grandparents’ marriage and the subsequent birth of my grandmother?
And before the morality police spring into action, my personal belief is that women and children should never have borne the brunt of social stigma for the mis-timing of a marriage or birth. The term ‘illegitimate‘ is thankfully no longer relevant in the culture I live in, but I understand if that is not the case in yours.
No offence is intended by the information shared in this post, which is based on factual accounts of a segment of my family history.


