WHEN I became a cub reporter with the Sevenoaks News in 1955 part of my duty was to call on the parish vicars and write down all the names and addresses of forthcoming brides.

I would then visit the home with a wedding form and ask the bride's mother (never the father) if she could fill in all the details and let me know which local photographer would be covering the big event.

In those days most people got married in a church and it was necessary to book about a year in advance for it to be available on the chosen date.

Summer weddings were always popular but the most common month of all was October because it offered a tax rebate for the bridegroom.

But he was not the only beneficiary. Organists, choirs, bell ringers, florists, photographers, taxi owners, chauffeurs, confetti specialists, caterers, travel agents, village hall committees – all made a bob or two out of the marriage business.

So did local newspapers. Every week I had the weddings to write up from the information provided by the form.

Name of the church and vicar, best man, bridesmaids, maid of honour, page boy.

Details of the dresses, bouquets, reception, honeymoon, guard of honour (if any).

It went on and on. For society weddings I had to write a list of the presents.

From bridgeroom to bride, from bride's parents to happy couple, from Uncle Fred to same.

The list could occupy two columns.

Donald Hooper, the newspaper proprietor, loved weddings because they involved so many names.

And so many names meant so many newspapers sold. Sometimes the newsagents would order more copies.

And advertisers included most of those listed above – florists shops, taxi companies, etc. Everybody was happy.

This week I heard that the number of people getting married is at its lowest since 1895.

The young no longer value marriage and I can't really understand why.

Do they think it's outdated? Or do they believe it will end in divorce? Is it too expensive? Or is it possibly because they cannot face the commitment?

I have two daughters. One has been married and divorced and is living with a partner, the other has a partner and a son.

She has spoken about marriage but her 'posslq' (person of the opposite sex sharing living quarters), a term adopted by the Government, is not so sure.

I don't think he wants the months of hectic preparation. I don't believe he likes the idea of a stripper turning up at his stag party either!

No, he has a son, a cat, a garden shed, two cars, a reasonable mortgage and a good job.

Why jeopardise that with the responsibility of marriage?

Just before the declaration of war in 1939 brides-to-be were in a frantic rush to get their men to the altar before they joined the British Expeditionary Force, or the RAF, or the Navy.

It was the same in 1946 when the single men came home.

This newspaper reported many thousands of weddings during those years.

Marriage had never been so popular and it continued throughout the '50s and '60s.

Today, there are many young people who have never been a bridesmaid, or best man.

There are older men who have never had the opportunity of giving a daughter away or a mother who has never helped a daughter climb into a white wedding dress.

There are new village halls which have never witnessed a reception.

There are organists who have never had the opportunity to play Handel or Mendelssohn or even the Trumpet Voluntary.

If someone had told me in 1955 that this would be the case 50 years on, I would not have believed them. Marriage was an institution that could not possibly fade. In any event I was too busy with a report such as this: "The bride was attired in a gown of silver satin with a small floral design, made from an Indian sari mounted on ivory tissue with a matching headdress and a long veil of cream tulle.

"Her bouquet was of white roses and stephanotis."

Please go away, I would have said. I've got 17 of these of these damn things to write up!