RootsChat.Com

Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: DudelsackHogg on Wednesday 21 July 21 11:15 BST (UK)

Title: Roxburgh Kirk Session entry - Hog/Waldie
Post by: DudelsackHogg on Wednesday 21 July 21 11:15 BST (UK)
Kirk Session

I am typing up some Kirk Session entries and would appreciate your help with this entry:

https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/virtual-volumes/volume-images?volume=CH2/314/3&volume_info=Roxburgh%20kirk%20session&volume_short_desc=Minutes%20%281831-1842%29&record_id=1836&rex_uid=REX00331&placename=Roxburgh%20kirk%20session&image=5

Bottom right entry.

This is what I have so far:

Roxburgh Church 2 October 1831

The Kirk Session having met after Public Worship was constituted Sederunt Mr Hope Moderator and William Laidlaw and Duncan Kennedy Elders. Compeared William Hog and Mary Waldie both residing in this parish and being asked by the moderator if they had made an irregular marriage they acknowledged the same, and produced a certificate dated Coldstream B(?) 26 September 1831
In confirmation  thereto(?) which(?) was (?) to be Kirk(?) in R(?)  and after being admonished were dismissed.



The last sentence is giving me problems. Any help and corrections would be most appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Roxburgh Kirk Session entry - Hog/Waldie
Post by: GR2 on Wednesday 21 July 21 12:03 BST (UK)
Coldstream Bridge

thereto which was ordered to be kept in [R   ] and they being admonished
Title: Re: Roxburgh Kirk Session entry - Hog/Waldie
Post by: DudelsackHogg on Wednesday 21 July 21 12:35 BST (UK)
Coldstream Bridge - thank you.

A quick search brought up this great article.

https://www.bordersancestry.com/blog/tying-the-knot-in-the-borders-a-look-at-regular-irregular-marriages-in-the-scottish-borders-and-dispelling-the-myths

"Coldstream Toll, then called the Bridge Inn, whose backroom was used for the purpose of irregular marriage (and a further room for consummation thereof) "

I wonder if William and Mary used the backroom.
Title: Re: Roxburgh Kirk Session entry - Hog/Waldie
Post by: DudelsackHogg on Wednesday 21 July 21 13:34 BST (UK)
So now I have:

Roxburgh Church 2 October 1831

The Kirk Session having met after Public Worship was constituted Sederunt Mr Hope Moderator and William Laidlaw and Duncan Kennedy Elders. Compeared William Hog and Mary Waldie both residing in this parish and being asked by the moderator if they had made an irregular marriage they acknowledged the same, and produced a certificate dated Coldstream Bridge 26 September 1831
in confirmation thereto, which was ordered to be kept in R?)  and they being admonished were dismissed.

That last word still has me a bit stumped - looks like Retortes.

Thanks for your help.

Perhaps the Kirk session were suspicious. 8 months after the irregular marriage their son was born. On the next page Willam and Mary are admonished for antinuptial fornication, that page is easier to read, guess he had filled up his ink well by then. 
Title: Re: Roxburgh Kirk Session entry - Hog/Waldie
Post by: GR2 on Wednesday 21 July 21 14:15 BST (UK)
I have not come across retort or retorte used in a way other than a reply to a statement or accusation. They are obviously holding on to the certificate as evidence of the date and were right to do so, as they could use it as evidence for a charge of antenuptial fornication. "Retortes" does make sense in a kind of way. I'm sure the word appears numerous times in similar cases in the minutes.
Title: Re: Roxburgh Kirk Session entry - Hog/Waldie
Post by: DudelsackHogg on Wednesday 21 July 21 15:48 BST (UK)
Actually no, I don't see it used in other entries but I'll keep looking. Some of them take a bit of effort to read.

I'm not sure Retortes is right - it does look there is a 'tittle' at the end of the word. The R and K are almost identical so it could be something starting with a K.

Thanks for your help, much appreciated. 
Title: Re: Roxburgh Kirk Session entry - Hog/Waldie
Post by: arthurk on Wednesday 21 July 21 16:15 BST (UK)
How about In Retentis?

https://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/in_retentis
Title: Re: Roxburgh Kirk Session entry - Hog/Waldie
Post by: DudelsackHogg on Wednesday 21 July 21 16:27 BST (UK)
Brilliant. I think you've cracked it. That certainly fits.

Thank you very much, mission accomplished.
Title: Re: Roxburgh Kirk Session entry - Hog/Waldie
Post by: DudelsackHogg on Wednesday 21 July 21 16:57 BST (UK)
Reading over the definition again brings up something quite interesting. It suggests either William or Mary were poorly at the time.  Very intriguing and amazing how that one word suddenly changes my thoughts on the entry.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: Roxburgh Kirk Session entry - Hog/Waldie
Post by: arthurk on Wednesday 21 July 21 19:55 BST (UK)
I only came across In Retentis today, so I'm not an expert. However, it occurs to me that maybe the elders were suspicious as to their reasons for going to Coldstream Bridge to be married, so, rather than illness, perhaps they kept a copy of the certificate in case it was needed as evidence if/when a child was born less than 9 months later.
Title: Re: Roxburgh Kirk Session entry - Hog/Waldie
Post by: DudelsackHogg on Wednesday 21 July 21 21:42 BST (UK)
Thanks for your that. Well they were correct with their suspicions. 8 months after the irregular marriage their son Andrew was born and Willam and Mary were admonished for antinuptial fornication. I guess the elders were good at their jobs.
Title: Re: Roxburgh Kirk Session entry - Hog/Waldie
Post by: arthurk on Thursday 22 July 21 10:45 BST (UK)
Yes, you mentioned the child in reply #3, which was what made me think of it. Of course, it may simply have been that they liked to have a record of all marriages just in case a child popped out a bit early; usually they'd have this in the church's own register, so in this case they hung on to the document instead. But the use of an irregular marriage venue may well have made them extra suspicious.

Edited to add:
Re-reading the thread, I see that in reply #4 GR2 had already suggested that it was to do with keeping evidence in case it was needed. Credit where credit's due etc.