RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Fife => Topic started by: Westee on Thursday 25 June 20 09:54 BST (UK)
-
John Anderson and Jean Leckie married on 14th Jan 1762 Auchertool and then two days later married in Dysart on 16th Jan 1762. Why would that be?
Also I have noticed several times 'irregular' marriage on the old parish record. Although it looks all quite okay/legal. Can someone clarify what this means?
-
The proclamation of banns was the notice of contract of marriage, read out in the church before the marriage took place. Couples or their 'cautioners' (sponsors) were often required to pay a 'caution' (pronounced 'kay-shun') or security to prove the seriousness of their intentions. Forthcoming marriages were supposed to be proclaimed on three successive Sundays, however, in practice, all three proclamations could be made on the same day on payment of a fee. If the bride and groom lived in different parishes, the impending marriage was proclaimed in both parishes, although not necessarily on the same days, therefore the dates in each register may be different. You may also find that one register may show the proclamation date and the other the date of the marriage itself.
https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/guides/church-registers
ev
Added-
Bear in mind that 'irregular' marriages, by exchange of promises before witnesses, by betrothal and consummation, or by cohabitation and repute, were forms of marriage recognised by Scots Law, yet may have taken place without any official record of the event.
-
Hi,
Quite often the couple tied the knot in one of their parishes and repeated the exercise in the other parish sometimes on the same day, sometimes a few days later. Especially if there was a distance, it enabled the other set of relatives to be at the ceremony.
Doolittle 72
-
Quite often the couple tied the knot in one of their parishes and repeated the exercise in the other parish sometimes on the same day, sometimes a few days later. Especially if there was a distance, it enabled the other set of relatives to be at the ceremony.
Can you please quote a reliable source for that, because I am under exactly the opposite impression, namely that there are theological objections to performing two religious marriage ceremonies.
What the parish registers record is the fact that the couple's banns have been proclaimed, and that no objections to the marriage have been offered. Sometimes the parish registers also give the date and place of the ceremony, but many don't.
It is very common to find an apparent double marriage in the old parish registers, but this does not mean that there were two marriage ceremonies.
The banns had to be called in both the bride's parish and the groom's parish if they resided in different parishes, and this is what results in what appears to be two records of the same marriage in different parish on different dates.
-
I am totally in agreement with Forfarian on this. It was the Banns being called and not 2 marriages taking place.
My 4 x Great Grandparents entry in St. Monans, Fife gives the following information -
"David Easson Junior and Agnes Wilson both in this Parish were contracted and married on 20th August 1796. Because he was going immediately to sea, and therefore were three times proclaimed before the congregation and were married after sermon being upon Saturday before the Sacrament."
More information than you normally get.
Dorrie
-
Nice to have Dowdstree :)
Really interesting to get this feedback which has greatly clarified it for me.
Just of interest; in one instance in Dysart OPR's (my ancestors) - the couple on 22 January 1791 "Jas. Haldane and Mary Anderson both here were contracted & after proclamation married". Then on 30th May 1792 (some 16 months later) "Jas. Haldane and Mary Anderson both here were contracted and after proclamation married." So the earlier one would have been the banns and then they married on 30th May 1792? First child born 20 Feb 1763 so seems correct. Seems a long time before the second 'commitment', which was 16 months later. I was thinking that maybe he had to leave the parish or similar and returned 16 months later. Any comments ...?
They went on to have a further 8 children.
-
I have just checked the Index for the Dysart OPR's and without looking at the actual entries it says -
James Haldane and Margaret Anderson - 22/1/1791
James Haldane and Mary Anderson - 30/9/1792.
Is there some confusion there?
Dorrie
-
Nice to have Dowdstree :)
Just of interest; in one instance in Dysart OPR's (my ancestors) - the couple on 22 January 1791 "Jas. Haldane and Mary Anderson both here were contracted & after proclamation married". Then on 30th May 1792 (some 16 months later) "Jas. Haldane and Mary Anderson both here were contracted and after proclamation married." So the earlier one would have been the banns and then they married on 30th May 1792?
It's possible that the second one is the result of the clerk having forgotten about the first one. Are they both in the same handwriting? Maybe it was a new clerk who had just heard about the marriage and hadn't noticed that his predecessor had already recorded it? In the absence of an actual date of marriage from either entry, I think all conclusions are off.
-
It has bothered me for years.
I think it looks like the same handwriting.
However, when I look even closer I think the writer/clerk actually makes a twist at the end of the name Mary (which actually looks like a small 't') but in actual fact it is just the tail of the 'y'. There is one name 'Margaret' which is written out in full; whereas there are about 8 Marys.
I have come to the conclusion that it is the same couple; as absolutely no death for a Margaret Haldane and no children either. I had searched for years for death/children but to no avail and last night when I looked under a microscope I came to the the conclusion that the clerk extends the 'y' right up.
Would be fabulous to get this settled. I can try and copy the two OPR sheets on this page for your perusal and thoughts. Has taken me years to get this sorted.
-
Hi Westee. Curiosity got the better of me so I looked at both entries. The 1791 is Margaret. It has Marg and then the rest goes up in a loop. The 1792 one is Mary with a loop on the Y. Hope I have explained this ok and cropped the images properly. Hope this helps.
Dorrie
-
Certainly looks like the same handwriting.
I wonder .... is it possible that the 1792 entry was made from some old notes which the clerk has misread as Mary when it should have been Margaret?
It just seems rather a big coincidence if a James Haldane married a Margaret Anderson in 1791 and a different James Haldane married a Mary Anderson a year later.
Or maybe Margaret died and her widower then married her sister or cousin?
Speculation, speculation ....
-
Forfarian looking at the full images of both entries it is definitely the same handwriting.
Could be a remarriage for James Haldane if Margaret Anderson died and then he married Mary Anderson.
Or it could be two different couples. Perhaps related to each other in some way - cousins perhaps? I have come across this before and it was a nightmare to sort out.
Pure speculation as you say.
Dorrie
-
Tis a problem for me insofaras I can't find a thing for a Margaret Haldane; no death no children.
-
But I wonder why in 1791 OPR 'Margaret' is written out in full for Jas. Tod and Margaret Fleming; whereas all the others on the same page are shortened to look like 'Mary'.
Frustrating -
-
We will never know why only one was written in full as Margaret.
Remember though that not all birth, marriages and deaths were recorded way back then nor have all survived prior to official registration in 1855.
Dorrie