MONRO Family in Perthshire 1720's to 1850's

[Skoosh]

@ FF,  as you know marriage is not a sacrament in the Church of Scotland, what was important to establish by the calling of the banns is that the any offspring would not end up a burden on the parish if one had a spouse elsewhere for example, & to prevent frivolous marriage intentions hence a cautioner putting up the cash.

Skoosh.

[Forfarian]

@ FF,  as you know marriage is not a sacrament in the Church of Scotland, what was important to establish by the calling of the banns is that the any offspring would not end up a burden on the parish if one had a spouse elsewhere for example, & to prevent frivolous marriage intentions hence a cautioner putting up the cash.

Yes. I am aware of that, but it still seems curious that they were so lackadaisical about recording that the ceremony had actually taken place.

Given the church's obsession with the extirpation of sin in general and one specific variety of sin in particular, one would have thought that they would be keen to keep a record of the event that transforms it from grave sin to approved activity.

[Skoosh]

All sin aside, the banns were a matter of public concern, the actual marriage a private one. It's the congregation who could be left footing the bill if matters went awry! The Kirk was the only Social Security system that there was, it was responsible for the poor, for education & squeezing cash from skinflint heritors to help maintain the kirk, manse & school.
The session clerk of necessity had to run a very tight ship, bawbees were the name of the game. I'm sure the inconvenience of genealogists 200 years hence was not uppermost on his mind as he sharpened his goose-quill!  We have what we have! 

Skoosh.

[Forfarian]

I'm sure the inconvenience of genealogists 200 years hence was not uppermost on his mind as he sharpened his goose-quill!  We have what we have! 

Indeed

[bushpoet]

SurnameForename    Spouse Name          Date          Parish Number  Ref Parish 
MONRO      DONALD     JONET STEWART/ 15/03/1743          346/            20 281     Dull
MONRO      DONALD     JONET STEWART/ 26/08/1746          346/            20 292     Dull
MONRO      DONALD     JANET STEUART/  09/08/1746          376/            10 457     Logierait
                                  FR255 (FR255) 

Looking back at Forfarian's post:

9 August 1746 • Logerait, Perth, Scotland
Name Donald Monro Gender Male Marriage Date 09 Aug 1746 Marriage Place Logierait, Perth, Scotland Spouse Janet Steuart

26 August 1746 • Dull,Perth,Scotland
Name Donald Monro Gender Male Marriage Date 26 Aug 1746 Marriage Place Dull,Perth,Scotland Spouse Jonet Stewart

These are not two separate marriages - they are two records of the same marriage.

I notice that the first two records [taken from Scotland's People]

MONRO DONALD JONET STEWART/ 15/03/1743 346/  20 281 Dull

MONRO DONALD JONET STEWART/ 26/08/1746 346/ 20 292 Dull

These have the same Parish Number but different Reference Numbers  same Parish.

But the years are 1743 and 1746.

Are all three of these registrations actually referring to the same couple but why the three years difference?

Looking at the children's birth record they all seem to belong to the same parents from the year 1743 to 1757.

SurnameForename    PRENTS DTAILS/OTHER                  GENDER DATE PARISH NUMBER  REF
MONRO     JOHN          DONALD MONRO/JONET STEWART         M     05/05/1744    346/     20 48
PARISH
Dull

MONRO     JAMES         DOND. MONRO/JANET STEWART           M      16/02/1746   398/     10 86
                                                              FR91 (FR91)
PARISH
Weem

 
MUNROE    CHARLES     DONALD MUNROE/JANET STEWART       M      01/11/1747  398/      10 90
PARISH
Weem

MONRO      ELIZABETH  DONALD MONRO/JANET STEWART         F      09/10/1752  398/      10 100
PARISH
Weem


MONRO      ROBERT       DONALD MONRO/JANT. STEWART         M      28/05/1757 398/       10 110
PARISH
Weem

[Throth]

The coding that you are looking at refers to the Mormon Church microfilm copy of the original OPR

MONRO DONALD JONET STEWART/ 15/03/1743 346/  20 281 Dull

So 346 is the parish number, 20 is a film roll number (there were all spliced together to make a single microfilm roll) and 281 is a page number.

If you are lucky enough to have a resource centre that holds the microfilm you can find the entries more easily. Thus the 1743 entry is on page 281 of the  OPR and the 1746 is another 11 pages on, which is what you would expect from the entry dates.

However, without looking at the actual wording of these two original entries it is impossible to say whether these are the same entry (which would be odd). Yes, the Dull OPR does have some entries re-written at a later date by the registrar, but to have given an erroneous date would be unusual, and secondly re-writes are normally of whole blocks of marriages so there should be a block of secondary entries with the wrong dates.

Knowing what Dull parish OPR can be like we suspect that entry will merely say 'both of this parish', but the baptisms should all give where the child was born. The Logierait OPR usually gives more detail.

Without being able to see all of the original entries it is difficult to give further advice.

Throth (www.borenich.co.uk)

[Forfarian]

MONRO DONALD JONET STEWART/ 15/03/1743 346/  20 281 Dull
MONRO DONALD JONET STEWART/ 26/08/1746 346/ 20 292 Dull
These have the same Parish Number but different Reference Numbers  same Parish.

Just means that the 1743 one is on page 281 and the 1946 one is on page 291 of the marriage register.

But the years are 1743 and 1746.
Are all three of these registrations actually referring to the same couple but why the three years difference?

Possible. If it were the other way round, i.e. banns proclaimed in two different parishes in one year and then another record three years later, I would be more inclined to think so.

Have you viewed the originals of the marriage records to see if they might shed some light?

The other possibility is that the kirk session records might have soem information, if they have survived.