Hi Sue,
The IGI does not differentiate between Proclamation of Banns and Marriages. So, just by looking at the IGI, one does not know whether or not the marriage actually took place. Indeed, I suspect that most of the entries relate to the date of Proclamation of Banns and thus do not reflect an actual date of a Marriage or whether the Marriage took place (though in most cases it probably did).
But here is an example of one which didn't.
From the IGI:
Marriage, Andrew HOSE and Marion MCBLANE 11 Apr 1819 Dalrymple Ayr Scotland
Marriage, Andrew HOSE and Isabella DUFF 22 Nov 1819 Dalrymple Ayr ScotlandFrom this one might think that there must have been two chaps named Andrew HOSE in Dalrymple and that both married in the same year.
But the actual church register reveals a different story.
Click Here*April 11th ... Andrew Hose and Marion McBlane, both of this Parish, were proclaimed but not married
*November 22nd ... Andrew Hose and Isabella Duff, both of this Parish, were married. However, quite often the films of the church registers are no help - the registers just record the Proclamation of Banns with no indication of when, or whether or not, the Marriages actually took place.
And remember that, though the Banns were proclaimed in Church (meant to be in the parishes of both bride and groom if they were different, and meant to be on three successive Sundays - but that didn't always happen), the actual marriage was possibly celebrated in the Manse, or in the bride's home, and possibly not by the Minister of the parish where the Banns were proclaimed. So the Minister of the parish where the Banns were proclaimed may not actually have known when or even whether the marriage took place.
Even when the church register does record that the marriage took place, often it does not give the actual marriage date.
For example:
The Dalgety Fife Parish Register in 1843 reads:
"Maclure & Philp. 13th Oct 1843 which day Alexander Maclure Eastwood parish and Jane Philp in this parish gave up their names for proclamation in order to marriage and after being regularly proclaimed were married by Mr Hemming(?) Inverkeithing". It does not state the actual date of marriage.
So you really can't tell when or whether Thomas SMITH and Ann PEAT were married.
However, did they have children baptized and entered in the church register? If they did, and if the children were recorded as "lawful", that would indicate that the Minister knew they had actually been married and with benefit of clergy. Otherwise, the Ministers had the 'delightful' habit of describing the child as 'natural' or using wordings like 'in fornication', etc.
The words 'with benefit of clergy' are relevant. Even if Thomas and Ann were not married by a Minister they could well have been quite legally married under Scots Law. Scots Law viewed marriage essentially as a contract between two people. Three forms of marriage were recognised:
(a) two people agreeing to marriage in front of witnesses (and marriage by a Minister was essentially a form of that)
(b) marriage by habit and repute (e.g. a couple who lived together, had children together, and were viewed as man and wife by their community)
(c) a promise of marriage followed by consummation.
The Church couldn't gainsay the Law but it chose to describe marriages with benefit of clergy as 'Regular' and all other marriages as 'Irregular'. This was an unpleasant - in my view - choice of words which even passed into official usage when Statutory Registration was introduced in 1855. This did not cease until the Marriage (Scotland) Act of 1939 came into force in July 1940!
Cheers,
JAP