RootsChat.Com

Can someone explain the role of a cautioner at a Scots marriage please.All I can find by Google is (Scots law) surety,sponsor.

George.

Ah ha,seen that now Bob,thank you very much.

George.

Thanks Graham,I do have one that says a couple put their names to be proclaimed for marriage and 'payed the poors money',would that be them putting some kind of fee in the poor box.

George.

Yes. In a way it is almost a kind of insurance! You might fall on hard times in the future and be supported from the poor-box! I have a marriage in 1755 where they 'payed 3£ scots to the poor'.

I wonder if you might be slightly confusing two separate issues?

A cautioner would agree to put up a pledge, and if the marriage did not then go ahead, the pledge would be forfeited.

On the other hand when a marriage did go ahead, it was customary for the kirk to levy a fee, and such fees were part of the normal income to the parish's poors fund. This isn't always clear from the parish register, but it is much more obvious if you read through the kirk session minutes, where the income and expenditure on the poor is often recorded in great details.

The amount of the fees paid varied according to the couple's standing in the community and to their ability to pay.

If you were born in the parish, or had gained 'settlement' there, you were entitled to claim support from the parish, whether or not you had contributed to the poors fund in the past.

I recommend a look at the parish register of New Monkland in the County of Lanark for clarification of this. Most marriages from the early 1800s to 1845, when responsibility for the poor was transferred from the kirk to the parochial board, appear only as income entries in the monthly accounts and not as the conventional "YY and XX both in this parish .... were proclaimed in order to marriage .... "

Question: would the cautioner always be a member of the family ? It seems so seen as money was being paid to uphold the marriage. But does anyone know if in any case the cautioner wouldn't necessarily always have to be a relative ?

Strange question I know, but it would help me with my research. I'll try and explain about what my problem is but be warned it is complicated.

I have a parish marriage record for an Alexander Munro (who I think could be my direct paternal ancestor) to Mary Munro "alias Bayne" dated 8th October 1750 and they married in the village of Clair, parish of Kiltearn, in Easter Ross-shire. I should point out that Mary Munro's place of residence is given as the same place where they were married at Clair in the parish of Kiltearn, and her and Alexander Munro's seven subsequent children were all born in the same place of Clair, Kiltearn. However, Alexander Munro's residence at the time of the marriage is given on the OPR as Ridorch. This place is known as Ridorcha on modern maps and is in Wester Ross, and I have measured it on a map as being nearly 40 miles in a straight line from the village of Clair, in the parish of Kiltearn, Easter Ross. So he removed to her place where they settled and had children.

Now I should mention that the parish of Kiltearn where they married, settled and had kids is the location of Foulis Castle, seat of the chiefly Munros of Foulis who had many paternally related Munro cadet branches in the parish.

The cautioner on the 1750 marriage OPR for the groom, Alexander Munro, is given as Hugh Munro, tacksman in Teanard (Teanord) which is also a village in the parish of Kiltearn. Now this Hugh Munro who was cautioner I know was a paternal relative of the Munro of Foulis family, and this gives me a problem because I have taken part in a Y-DNA test which says that I am not paternally descended from the Munros of Foulis, therefore if Hugh Munro the cautioner is a paternal relative of Alexander Munro then it would rule out Alexander Munro as being my ancestor. However I should point out again that Alexander Munro was from 40 miles away in Ridorch, where as Hugh the cautioner was from the parish of Kiltearn where the marriage took place.

There is a twist in that having studied published genealogies of the Munros of Foulis it seems that the bride, Mary Munro, would almost certainly be paternally descended from the Munro of Foulis family and quite closely related to Hugh Munro who was the cautioner for the groom. (I should point out that if Mary Munro is paternally descended from the Munro of Foulis family then she and Alexander Munro could still be my ancestors as per the Y-DNA testing which does not take in DNA from female ancestors, its only a problem if Alexander Munro is paternally descended from the Munros of Foulis).

Another thing is that Hugh Munro of Teanoird, parish of Kiltearn who is the cautioner for the groom Alexander Munro is stated on the marriage OPR of 1750 as being the tacksman of Teanord, but in a published genealogy of the Munro of Foulis family he is recorded as an "elder" in the Kiltearn parish church - so would this have anything to do with him being a cautioner rather than him being related to the person(s) being married ?

Mary Munro's cautioner was Duncan Reid who again I cannot see if he was related to her. I think her mother's surname was actually Bayne as per her alias on the marriage OPR.

Any help much appreciated.

Mike Munro.