divorced?

[Floss]

I wonder if anyone would be able to help me ?

I have an entry of a marriage from Scotlands People in 1911, unlike others I've come across in doesn't say 'after forms according to banns of roman catholic church ....'  or words to that effect.  The groom is listed as a bachelor but the bride (my gg aunt) isn't listed as a spinster.  My dad seems to recall from family discussions that she was married before but we can find no record of this marriage.
Could it be that she was married and then divorced - was divorcing possible then? - The certificate is not signed by a minister but says 'warrant of sherriff substitute of Lanarkshire'

thanks in advance for any ideas
Fiona

[RJ_Paton]

A marriage not performed by Clergy was deemed an Irregular marriage and a warrant from the local Sheriff was required to register the marriage.

As to divorce ..... possible but very expensive and complicated there were many reasons a man could find to divorce his wife but few for a woman to divorce.

[Floss]

Thanks for the quick reply Falkyrn.

Would you be able to tell me why a marriage would be irregular?

Fiona

[RJ_Paton]

Scots Law recognised a number of forms of marriage ...

this is the modern interpretation

Irregular Marriages

The term ‘common - law’ husband or wife is often used but has no legal standing. However it is possible to be married without a civil, religious or humanist ceremony. This is known as an irregular marriage by ‘cohabitation with habit and repute’. To be recognised as married by cohabitation with habit and repute, the couple must:-

    * live in Scotland
    * behave as if they are married (not simply as lovers or cohabitees) and have produced a general belief that they are married (for example, call themselves by the same name)
    * live together and have been doing so for a considerable time as husband and wife - a few years cohabitation is normally required
    * not be married to someone else and must be free to marry each other. If they are not initially free to marry but become so and choose merely to live together, they may be considered as married by cohabitation with habit and repute. However, it is only the period when the couple have been free to marry that would be considered.

from advice guide scotland



however the church regarded any marriage without "benefit of clergy" as an irregular marriage

Any marriage that did not include a proclamation was considered an irregular marriage and was dealt with by the Kirk Session elders of the local parish. That could include eloping to a Justice of the Peace, or common law marriage. Elopement was a concern because of the not infrequent kidnapping of young heiresses.

from http://www.geocities.com/mjjodoin/irreg.htm

[Ros Fornaro]

Hi Floss,

Scotland's Archives has some divorces.

http://www.nas.gov.uk/

Ros

[runner]

Hi Falkyrn

I appreciate it when folks give a direct quote

Would it be too much to ask for you to give your sources as well?
Even better would be a thread where any quotes submitted could be posted so that a library of sources would build up.

I often know the main issue but could not pinpoint where to go to get absolute confirmation.

Russell

[Floss]

Hi

Thanks, Falkryn, for the information
Thanks also to Ros for the link

Fiona

[Okonski]

A marriage not performed by Clergy was deemed an Irregular marriage and a warrant from the local Sheriff was required to register the marriage.

Not wishing to cause a major upset - but I would strongly question your assertion that a Marriage ceremony performed under a Sherrif's Warrant was 'irregular'. Far from it.  Everything you quoted from the 'advice guide' regarding common-law was fine, but this required no ceremony of civil inerraction - just the 'belief' that they were married. A Sheriff's Warrant had to be formally obtained and as such legalised the union. I have Marriage extracts showing this and quoting the Warrant. Common Law marriages were NOT listed in the BMD registers.

[RJ_Paton]

I didn't say that the marriage was "common law" 9technically this is not an officially recognised term" I said the marriage may have been an irregular marriage.
The church held the opinion that ANY form of marriage not performed by Clergy was an irregular marriage .....  therefore regardless of how much trouble one went to in order to obtain the full legal support of the courts etc in the eyes of the church the marriage was still irregular.

I refer you to the second part of my post regarding this matter.