Marriage witnesses name opinions needed

[sami]

Thomas Wills and Mary Dear.

Although in the first record I thought it might be Thomas Hills.

sami

[Rosinish]

It may be worth someone putting the 2 snips together (above & below) for comparison & to be sure although Wills does seem correct.

We can all do our signature slightly different from time to time in different fonts (I know I do).

Annie

[BumbleB]

I may be wrong, but I believe that the reason that there are two images for this marriage is that one entry is the original parish register, where all those who could sign their own name did so, and the other version is the Bishop's Transcript where the church official completed the whole form for submission to the Diocese.

Having now looked at the two images on Ancestry, I am even more sure of my assumption.  The church official being John Barnard.

[Karen McDonald]

I may be wrong, but I believe that the reason that there are two images for this marriage is that one entry is the original parish register, where all those who could sign their own name did so, and the other version is the Bishop's Transcript where the church official completed the whole form for submission to the Diocese.

Having now looked at the two images on Ancestry, I am even more sure of my assumption.  The church official being John Barnard.

Just for people like me, who have little idea about this... 

Does that mean that the church official was there when the parish register was completed, i.e. there were 2 versions drawn up at practically the same time, meaning that he knew exactly what the names were, or could it be that an official, who was not at the actual wedding, made a copy of the parish register at some later date? If the latter applies, he could have had the same problems as we are experiencing...

I'd be grateful for a little guidance on this.

Ta very much. 

[BumbleB]

John Barnard would certainly have written up the original register (where No: 646 is printed) prior to the ceremony, so that the parties could sign or make their mark.  The BT (where No: 646 is hand-written) would have been completed after the ceremony, which is why all the names are in the same script. 

[JenB]

I agree with BB that you are looking at two records of the same event.
One is the original, hence the differing handwritings, the other is the Bishops Transcript, copied after the event hence all in the same handwriting.

Does that mean that the church official was there when the parish register was completed, i.e. there were 2 versions drawn up at practically the same time,

No they weren't necessarily drawn up at the same time. Bishops Transcripts were required to be sent up to the relevant Diocese annually. There is a very good explanation of the system here https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/16244/New-to-archdeacons-and-bishops-transcripts.pdf

[Karen McDonald]

Does that mean that the church official was there when the parish register was completed, i.e. there were 2 versions drawn up at practically the same time,

No they weren't necessarily drawn up at the same time. Bishops Transcripts were required to be sent up to the relevant Diocese annually. There is a very good explanation of the system here https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/16244/New-to-archdeacons-and-bishops-transcripts.pdf

Thanks for that!