divorced?

[Okonski]

I noted the second part, but didn't feel it added anything to the debate. The role of the clergy in any faith-based marriage is already devalued as if it isn't recognised by the State (ie listed in the BMD) then it might as well not have happened.

Being realistic, it is not the Sheriff's Warrant marriages that were irregular, but the Church ones - is simply depends on your point of view.

Whilst you didn't state the marriage by Warrant was 'common law' (usual misconceptions and caveats noted), you did say it was 'irregular', and it is this point I addressed. The State did not view it in this way, and as they were the arbiter in such matters, what the clergy thought of it all was largely, irrelevant.

[joette]

Could she have been married before & had an annulment form the RC Church? Maybe she married outside Scotland & that's why she is not on SP.
As to irregular marriages my understanding of it in Scots Law & Common Practice that where a marriage takes place outside the normal channels i.e.
banns posted & a ceremony performed in front of a certified celebrant-be he Priest, Minister whatever is considered irregular.
I am thinking of where people make a declaration of Marriage in front of a lawyer for example.They later may want to regularise the marriage & would then have to apply to the Sherriff for that to happen.I know of one case where this happened.

[runner]

Hi Okonski

Youre looking at the process from a modern perspective. In relative terms it is only recently that marriage was formalised by the state. Prior to that not only births and marriages were  a wholly church concern, parishes even provided the equivalent of the community policeman and were effectively the local law court for illegitimate births, swearing, gambling as well as maintaining records of who fathered who or married whom. They also dished out the Parish relief to the aged and indigent. A powerful position to be in!
Even in my youth (1940s) the opinion of the local minister often mattered more than anything that Donald - the village bobby said.
The good opinion of fellow villagers mattered much more than the legislative process. 200+ years of tradition doesn't change overnight just because a law is passed.

Russell

[Okonski]

I take your point, however whether we like it or not, we have to move with the times. For many of us searching, the 1850 is the start point for reliable* BMD records, prior to this we had to rely on the church, and as its influence has waned considerably, whilst my youth might trail yours by only 10 years or so, we both know the deference and respect for authority has diminished and is hardly likely to return. Looking at the various iniquities of the past, I don't think this is a bad thing - however, I still would not accuse someone who's marriage was formalised by a Warrant as 'Irregular'. There are some who deem the new 'Civil Partnerships' as being on an equal footing, however if there is a legitimate paper trail, I doubt genealogy hunters in the future will care either way!

*Relatively (and pun intended!)

[runner]

Hi again Okonski

In modern terms I agree with you entirely but Whem I'm on the trail of a relative from 1810 or similar I try to think myself into their response to the world they lived in. 
In Scotland the interfactional rivalries  grew to epic proportions and anything outside their current religious viewpoint was blasphemous and could be punishable by death so it wasn't just the church which held the lives of ordinary folk in the palms of their hand but the courts and the gentry. If they said it was irregular and you wanted to stay in your hovel rather than be imprisoned on the Bass Rock the best option was to agree with them. Some didn't and paid the ultimate penalty.
We see the residue of that type of attitude still today!  Homophobia is still with us . Attitudes change very slowly and religion is still used as justification for their positionYou can't change in 20 years what took 200 or more years to develop!
For a taste of it read James Robertson's book 'The Fanatic'. Fictional but fascinating and ties in well with Herman's 'The Scottish Enlightenment'

Thanks for your comments

Russell

[Okonski]

Hi Russell, Sure, but I took from your interpretation of irregular that you were continuing the dreadful phobias of the time by raising the word in the first place! 

Even so, I do believe we're getting getting better, but there are much worse things than homophobia, which I can sort of understand the fear of the unknown, but bigotry - I suppose a different fear of the unknown - is untenable, and in Glasgow the interest in what school you went to simply to ascertain your religion was iniquitous in the extreme. Still, it won't disappear in our lifetime, as the targets change - as 9/11 has proved.

Good to chat with you - all the best!

Raymond

[runner]

Hi Raymond

As an east coaster coming through to the west in the late 1950s I was horrified by the level of bigotry and the sneaky ways people tried to find out what your religious affiliations were.
As a practising heathen who appreciates the values behind the ten commandments it still amazes me that when you channel that hatred and spite through football support it then makes it OK for outwardly respectable citizens to vent their self-righteous spleen on others.  If the black death was visited on them they would probably avoid it they are so thick skinned!!!

Here on RootsChat we neither know, nor care about race, religion or anything else and may it continue to be that way.

Thanks for sharing ideas

Russell

[Okonski]

Hi Russell,

Yup, I find it most strange too, especially as my parents were forced to change their married surname to prevent me (at that time) being singled out for 'special attention' by the bigots. The rest of the UK only seems to single out Racism and Homophobia as a problem, but bigotry pre-dates it and it has never been properly addressed or eradicated. Perhaps this is why I hold the church in so much contempt, perhaps not so much the cause, but doing virtually nothing to resolve the problem. It has reached the stage where in my neck of the woods (5m north of the Clyde) in that the two local Secondary schools (Non-denominational & Catholic) stagger their lunch and closing times by 15 minutes to prevent school buses and those walking home being attacked. It's only a minority - granted - but the fact it still exists in 2006 is a depressing thought.

As you say, the Black Death was a great leveller - but god knows (pun intended) what the solution is going to be. At least with racism, anti-semitism, and homophobia, it keeps the nutters busy, and lessens the bigotry?  Who knows!

[Forfarian]

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 ....' 
The certificate is not signed by a minister but says 'warrant of sherriff substitute of Lanarkshire'

This has nothing to do with the marital status of the bride or the groom. It is a perfectly normal, legally recognised marriage by declaration in the presence of two witnesses, attested by a warrant from the Sheriff and registered in the normal manner.

However it is unusual for the marital status of one of the couple to be left blank.

Divorce was very difficult and expensive, especially for a woman, but not impossible. I have found one couple in my tree who were divorced in 1896 on the grounds of the husband's ill-treatment, desertion and adultery.

Records of many, but possibly not all, divorces are in the National Archives of Scotland www.nas.gov.uk - try searching the online catalogue for documents referring to both surnames.

HTH

Forfarian