Marriage Document Question, Please - Witnesses, 1869

[Lisa in California]

I know very little about Scottish records.  My husband's Irish ancestors were married in Dundee in 1869.  Part of the wording on the marriage document is:

"...after due proclamation of banns were married by me on..."

At the bottom of the paragraph are two witnesses names.  I am wondering, please, is it more likely that if the witnesses were married that their married names would be written down (ex: Patrick Sullivan and Sarah Sullivan), or is it more likely that the female's maiden name would be written down (ex: Patrick Sullivan and Sarah O'Malley)?

This document shows (not their real names)    Patrick Sullivan and Sarah O'Malley, but another document (of which I currently do not have a copy) shows names: "Patrick Sullivan and Sarah Sullivan".  I am wondering, please, if it was the same witnesses for both events.  Thank you.   

[Elwyn Soutter]

 In general, in Scotland in my experience a married woman would use her married name, but there’s nothing to stop her using a previous name, or indeed any other name.

Could “Sarah” have married between the two events? Could that be the explanation?

[Lisa in California]

Hi Elwyn:

Thank you very much for your help.  The couple (the witnesses) in which I am interested, I believe, were already married by 1869 and had several children (I cannot easily find their census record, at the moment).  After reading your reply, it sounds like it could possibly be the same man who was the witness to the two events, and two different women - one being his wife and the other being the bride's sister or other female relative.

The female witness on this document had the same surname as the bride and I believe it was a slightly uncommon surname, so they were possibly related.  I know absolutely nothing about the bride's siblings, aunts or cousins, so this could potentially be a good lead to follow up.

I appreciate your reply, Elwyn.  Thank you.

[Lisa in California]

Update:

I did find the census record for whom I believe is the male witness.  It appears that he married prior to 1855.

[Little Nell]

It was not unknown in the earlier part of the 19th century for a married woman to be known by her maiden name and they are often named with both names in wills for example even as late as 1900.  The practice was dying out but I have found in earlier census examples where the couple was married and the wife was recorded under her maiden name.

Nell

[Lisa in California]

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge, Nell.

I am writing a "biography" of the couple who were married in 1869 (not to be published - it's just for fun) and it wasn't until this morning that I noticed that the female witness had the same surname as the lady who got married.

I will try again to see if there is any connection to the two sets of witnesses.  I appreciate your help, Nell.

[GR2]

In Scotland, a woman always retained her maiden name. Legally, if Jean Smith married John Brown, she would be known, in official documents, as Jean Smith or Brown. However, when it comes to witnesses or informants in statutory certificates from 1855, they either signed their own name or, if illiterate, put a mark which was witnessed by someone who could write. From 1855, I have found that married female witnesses do generally tend to sign using their married surnames.

[Lisa in California]

Thank you for your help as well, GR2.

While we know about Margaret Flood's (the woman who married in 1869) life after 1869, we only know that her parents were Mark Flood, a wheelwright, and Jane Duffy.  They apparently had both died prior to Margaret's marriage.  The female witness on the marriage "document" was an Elizabeth Flood.  At this point, I am guessing that Margaret and Elizabeth could have been related.

The witnesses on the other form (I believe the image is on the computer that recently died) were Michael Clarke and Elspet or Elizabeth Clarke.  Perhaps Elizabeth Clarke was Elizabeth Flood, or, perhaps not.  One couldn't ask for a more common first name.   

I do know that Margaret Flood had a sister.  We don't know her name.  We believe she married a Mr. Reilly/Riley, but I have not found their marriage.  I will have a look around for an Elizabeth Reilly.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge as well; it is appreciated, GR2.

[deebel]

Did she have an maiden aunt Elizabeth. She could have "given her to be married" in the stead of her dead brother.