Lawfully proclaimed or privately married

[brigidmac]

I came across a couple John and Elizabeth ROBERTSON
who acknowledged before the session? they had privately (married) on month of may

What does this mean compared to others on the page who
Lawfully proclaimed to marriage in the parish

Does the fact that they have same surname reflect their married status or could her maiden surname be ROBERTSON. too ?

Ive included other couples to compare
 privately is followed by marr. On other lines I think the word was omitted here

[brigidmac]

It's recorded on 5th aug 1788
But marriage or banns ? Took place in May ...there may be a date squashed at end of line but I can't read it .

[Forfarian]

I came across a couple John and Elizabeth ROBERTSON
who acknowledged before the session? they had privately (married) on month of may

What does this mean compared to others on the page who
Lawfully proclaimed to marriage in the parish

It means that instead of having their banns proclaimed in the parish kirk and being married by the minister, they married by declaration before witnesses. This was a perfectly valid marriage, though such marriages were, not surprisingly, frowned on by the kirk.

Does the fact that they have same surname reflect their married status

No.

or could her maiden surname be ROBERTSON. too ?

Yes. Under Scots law a woman does not lose her maiden surname on marriage. This is why you get mothers' maiden surnames in baptism records, and you also find married women listed in the census under their own names, not their husbands' names.

[brigidmac]

Thanks Forfar * your explanations are wonderful as usual

I think the end of sentence maybe March last ...so not a date

One couple seem to have got married a year previously .

If it is my couple their daughters death states mother Elizabeth Robertson ms Robertson

Her baptism in 1800
Has John Robertson collier and eliz. Robertson there is a squiggle between first name and surname .I don't think it's a middle initial could it be a symbol for maiden name

[GR2]

The marriage is definitely in May.

What comes after Eliz is a superscript th - Eliz^th = Elizabeth. It appears in the child's name too.

[Neale1961]

ELIZABETH ROBERTSON
marriage
JOHN ROBERTSON/FR509 (FR509)
00/05/1788
644/2
30 53
Gorbals

[brigidmac]

Thanks again Neale
Th makes sense

& The marriage is the one I saw which adds weight to ROBERTSON m another ROBERTSON