....<more>.........
One example I know of involved a student at Edinburgh University who decided to go through an irregular marriage by declaration with the love of his life. To say that the Free Kirk family involved were horrified would be understating the matter as an uncle of the student was a high heid yin in the Free Kirk, not quite the Moderator, but not far off.
The couple were forced to separate and live apart, ‘re-marrying’ some 9 months later (work it out!) according to the ‘Forms of the Free Church of Scotland’ duly registered in the local registrar’s Register Book of Marriages.
It is often wrongly stated that there had to be witnesses. Not so, as JAP very correctly states, - just that this meant that the Sheriff Court Warrant wasn’t a possible route.
This situation required an action in the Court of Session where, if the judge was satisfied from the evidence presented to him that such a ‘private’ marriage had taken place, then a Declarator would be issued, which automatically led to an entry by the Registrar in his Register Book of Marriages.
There was a third possibly, this being the Conviction route involving arranging for a prosecution by 'A Justice of the Peace, or a Magistrate’. These must have been rare, - I’ve never come across one.
If anyone out there has an example of such a marriage by Conviction, I’d be most grateful for the reference or even a copy of the image, please, pretty please !, to add to my collection of rarities, - it will take it’s place after the first ever marriage that I recently came across ‘According to the Forms of the Salvation Army’ !
I have a memory but can’t be bothered to search at the moment for the reference to the fact that this Conviction possibility became impossible after some time in the 1920s. (Suggestion, - try the GROS site and list of acts….)
Obviously Gretna Green and other such ‘runaway’ marriages were simply irregular marriages in the eyes of Scots Law, but could only be registered in Scotland if the residential qualifications had been met.
Marriage by Habit and Repute continued way beyond 1939, - in fact up to 2006 (perchance 2005, - time goes past too fast these days, - I’d have to check out the date).
In fact, one of these subtleties, - this only did away with situations where the basis for later claiming a marriage by habit and repute was established after 2006 (or 2005?).
In other words, any couple who wish to claim a marriage by habit and repute for an earlier period can still do so for as long as they live, or, in fact, if just one of them lives, and the situation involves some continuing benefit being due to the spouse of the deceased.
There’s real wee peculiarity here. For a marriage by habit and repute to be recognised it must be shown that the couple never declared to each other that they were married, as that would then have been a marriage by declaration ! Think about it !
I’ve personally never come across a registration linking back to a Promise of Marriage followed by Consummation, but Leah Leneman’s book makes for fascinating reading if that sort of subject turns you on.
The major question is just what constituted a ‘promise’.
Forbye, the law was not prepared to accept that this could apply to a man and his mistress! If you’re interested, go buy Leah’s excellent book.
ibi