|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Dingwall OPR extracted entry (Read 524 times)
|
Old Bristolian
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 558
Ada & Joan
|
I have a record of a marriage (obtained from Scotlands People) for John MacDonald & Catherine Urquhart dated 31st December 1819 at Dingwall, Ross.
It is at the top of a blank page (numbered 125)with the following text underneath:
The preceeding entry is extracted from the Register in the custody of the Registrar in terms of the Acts 17 & 18 Vict. Cap. 80 and 23 & 24 Vict. Cap. 85
There follows a signature & "Registrar General" in a different hand.
Can anyone explain this? Do the Acts refer to the custody of the Register or the extraction of the entry?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bumstead - London, Suffolk
Flexney, Godfrey - Oxfordshire
Street, Cave - Gloucestershire
Gibbs, Gait, Noyes, Peters, Padfield, Board, York, Rogers, Emery, Clavey - Somerset
Fook, Snell - Devon
M(a)cDonald, Yuell, Gollan, McKenzie - Rosshire
McLennan, Mackintosh - Inverness
Williams, Jones - Angelsey & Caernarvon
|
|
|
Little Nell
Global Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 7271
|
They were acts of Parliament
1854, 17 & 18 Vict., c.80, An Act to provide for the better registration of births, deaths, and marriages in Scotland, sections 3 and 4.
This Act was the one which set up the Civil Registration system in Scotland.
1855, 23 & 24 Vict., c.85, An Act to amend two Acts of the seventeenth and eighteenth years, and of the eighteenth year, of Her Present Majesty, relating to the registration of births, deaths,
and marriages in Scotland, section 14.
This set up a Register of Neglected Entriesto enable any births, marriages and deaths which had taken place in Scotland between 1800 and 1855 and not recorded in the OPR to be formally registered - and it cost five shillings to do so. It also repealed with some unwieldy sections of the previous act, making it easier to administer. It also allowed errors in the pre-1855 registers to be corrected and registers dating from before 1820 to be sent to the Registrar General in Edinburgh.
So I think the marriage you have was a Neglected entry.
Nell
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Old Bristolian
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 558
Ada & Joan
|
Thanks Nell - that's fascinating.
If it is a Neglected Entry, does that mean the image I see was written in a later Register, & why would it be"extracted" from an earlier one?
Do you know why someone would wish to do this (5/- must have been a tidy sum in those days) and if it was a common occurence?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bumstead - London, Suffolk
Flexney, Godfrey - Oxfordshire
Street, Cave - Gloucestershire
Gibbs, Gait, Noyes, Peters, Padfield, Board, York, Rogers, Emery, Clavey - Somerset
Fook, Snell - Devon
M(a)cDonald, Yuell, Gollan, McKenzie - Rosshire
McLennan, Mackintosh - Inverness
Williams, Jones - Angelsey & Caernarvon
|
|
|
Little Nell
Global Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 7271
|
The image is, probably, of a page of entries which were all added to the register at a later date because they had been missed - or lost - at the time of the event. Extracted just means that it was found in the register and has been indexed. I have some entries from the Galashiels register which were all entered together at a later date, for two children from one family. Not all registers were properly kept for various reasons prior to 1855. I believe it was quite a common occurrence - hence the need for an act to allow the recording of the baptisms or marriages.
Nell
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Old Bristolian
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 558
Ada & Joan
|
Thanks again Nell
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bumstead - London, Suffolk
Flexney, Godfrey - Oxfordshire
Street, Cave - Gloucestershire
Gibbs, Gait, Noyes, Peters, Padfield, Board, York, Rogers, Emery, Clavey - Somerset
Fook, Snell - Devon
M(a)cDonald, Yuell, Gollan, McKenzie - Rosshire
McLennan, Mackintosh - Inverness
Williams, Jones - Angelsey & Caernarvon
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
