(*Completed with thanks*)Can't locate marriage Scotlandspeople or familysearch ?

[fifer1947]

Thanks from me too Annette I'd mislaid that link, now safely bookmarked!

[fifer1947]

They are on the 1841 together with 2 of a family and her Wintrop/Wintrup rellie at Loughburnfoot, Cavers so maybe the banns were called, marriage took place but the parish clerk forgot to write them in the register? 

[aghadowey]

The link for the old IGI is:

https://familysearch.org/search/collection/igi

The reason it's not coming up anywhere as they haven't obviously put these records online yet.

However, I just put in the brides name (being the more unusual) and the entry you are referring to only comes up in 'contributed' entries and not in the indexed entries.

So, your marriage comes up first in the contributed entries and was clearly submitted by a member of the church and was clearly your link to getting hold of the copy you have.

Annette

The submitted details can still be found on searches from the main search page- just go down to the bottom of the results on page 1 and look at Search Results from User Submitted Genealogies

[ScottishAncestry]

Dear Ailsa,

What a fascinating situation! I agree that this marriage does not appear to be indexed on familysearch or scotlandspeople. FreeReg are also stating they have indexed the Cavers parish marriages for this period and yet once again the entry is missing.

We suspect that when the book was microfilmed two pages were turned at once; very easy to do. All subsequent indexes have therefore not indexed the entries on the two ‘missing’ pages. We found this happened a few times when we were indexing the census. To check the census we made sure our totals matched the enumerators totals, this would alert us to a missing page. Our experience was that the GRO (Scotland's People centre) were very good at copying the missing pages for us.

The next time we’re in (not sure when) we could page through the images in the Scotland's People centre for you and if two pages have been turned we could ask them to photograph it for you.

Alternatively you could contact the Scotland's People centre directly, send them the extract you have and ask them to check the original register for you.

Either way let us know how it goes, I am intrigued!

Emma

[ailsac]

Emma. I had not thought of this situation - the pages missing. Makes sense when I can find other entries re Cavers Roxburghshire on the family search re same date even but they are also not showing on Scotlandspeople as I did a search re days before and after this date. But as others have suggested I feel this also might be a Kirk Session entry, hence another reason why not showing up.
 Also to fifer1947 the entry on the 1841 Census is actually showing the Miller family which is correct and the child Adam Wintrup aged 11 is actually Euphemia's son born out of wedlock. I have found these details and about to get copies of them via Scottish Indexes (used to be Maxwells Ancestry), there are two entries 1. re the paternity orders and also one re a Adam Wintrup in prison records. Will be interesting to see what these show and if the same person.
I have many of my Miller family not showing on familysearch or Scotlandspeople - yet I am the holder of a Birthday book of my GG Grandmother Helen Miller who married William Elliot and then immigrated to NZ. She has written the dates of births in this book of her father James Miller, her Grand father William Miller and her Great Grandfather James Miller (going back to 1719) in her handwriting. I am trusting this book is correct (well as close as possible that is), as all the other birthdates written in it are proving to be correct.
I think I am really waiting for the Kirk Session books to be available for all to search. Seems I cannot even order them via the familysearch microfilm order which is a pity.
So my next question really is - How do I access the details of the Kirk Session books from Australia ?
thanks again to everyone who is replying this has been a great day for me.
Ailsa

[JMStrachan]

Well, there clearly is an entry in the OPR but for reason it isn't in the scanned and indexed files on SP. I suspect the missing pages theory could be correct. I've looked through quite a few Kirk Session Minute books and have never seen an entry for banns as per the one you have.

I've also had to contact SP about erroneous or missing records and they've been fantastic, so you should receive a helpful reply.

[ScottishAncestry]

Whilst the National Records of Scotland is now an amalgamation of what was once the GRO and the Scottish Record Office/National Archives of Scotland, back in the 1990s they were completely separate. Apart from a few anomalies the Kirk Sessions were always held by the Scottish Record Office/National Archives of Scotland. To this day, even though both come under the new new name (the National Records of Scotland), and there is some overlapping with staff, they are still very separate organizations. I cannot imagine the GRO staff would have done a Kirk Session search for you. The Scottish Record office/National Archives of Scotland may have done but they would not have had the authority to write out an official OPR extract, which is what you have.  This is a legally binding document, the same principles apply as if a living person was to order a copy of a birth certificate today. Whilst mistakes could have been made, e.g. perhaps the spelling is wrong, it will have been made from an OPR.

As for the Kirk Sessions, well I keep hearing that they will go online soon but… we’re still waiting. I know the SP site is to have a major overhaul in 2016 so I wonder if they are waiting for that. The reality is that it would be very hard to index Kirk Sessions and so many feel they could only be published on a subscription site; this is of course a major deviation from the SP model at the moment.

I am Emma Maxwell of Scottish Indexes by the way, just in case you hadn’t made the connection.

Emma

[ailsac]

Hi to both Emma and JMStrachan
thanks to you both. I am hoping that there are missing pages and SP will get back to me regarding this entry to see if it is an OPR entry indexed wrongly or a Kirk Session record. Really nice to know that you have not seen a Kirk Session entry as such - I have not had the privilege of viewing any Kirk Sessions as yet. So lets hope my inquiry to SP brings forward some answers.
Emma  - I should have twigged it was you. I have just sent you a personal email re some further inquires regarding this family.
The document I have definitely has the watermark of the Crowns and the GRO stamped on it if you hold it up to the light. Does not show on the scanned copy, so it is genuine. I now think that I would have got the information from the IGI back then (days before recording all your source material was really stipulated and important for future research) - silly me as now I need this information to prove and help correct errors on others family trees, let alone my own family tree.
Again thanks to all that have replied so far, this has been a great night for me solving some mysteries. Ailsa

[sarah]

testing notifications