Weird marriage OPR (1738) that is something else

[Gateaux23]

While researching a marriage on scotlandspeople I hit on a search result that looked interesting - correct name for the husband, year and place: James Neil, New Monkland, 1738. However, it was indexed as "name not given" for the spouse. I purchased the item and was surprised to see that it was not a page from the marriage registry, but rather what appears to be a page from the session accounts - there is money collected on the sabbath.

Is this actually a record of marriage? Anyone know if the word "Info" is perhaps short for something like "informal"? Perhaps referring to an irregular marriage. All persons on the page paid 1s 10d. Perhaps a fine?

From my research I know that this couple got hauled in front of the session court of an entirely different parish for being irregularly married.

[Forfarian]

Unfortunately in New Monkland all you ever get for much of the time is a record of who paid how much, but this one is even less informative than usual.

I don't think it's 'Info'. The first letter looks like Q, and the last two are a long s followed by a short s, which would make it Q*ss but I have no idea what it means. Or it might be the number 2 rather than Q?

[GR2]

What looks like Qnss is actually an abbreviation of "Conssigned" = consigned.

It refers to the consigning of "pledges", a sum of money deposited when you intimated that you were intending to marry. If the marriage went ahead within forty days and had no scandal attached to it, the pledges were returned. You might find a record of the pledges being returned in the discharge side of the accounts. In that case it will say "to" then the name.

[Forfarian]

Thanks, GR2. That makes sense.

[Gateaux23]

Forfarian,

Yes, long s, not an f. Can't believe I missed that. I was so focused on the notion of irregular marriages that I seem to have unconsciously tried to force it to read what I wanted it to read. Oops.

GR2,

Unfortunately there are no accounts for this parish for that year (at least not on SP). They must exist though, at least in some form, since we've just looked at a page from it.  The minutes for 1738 also seem to be missing.

Anyway, I know from other sources that James Neil was eventually irregularly married in 1738/1739. If scandal was found, what happens after? Would that be reason for an irregular marriage?

[GR2]

It is indeed strange as there seem to be no minutes/accounts from 1738-43 inclusive.

There is always a possibility that this is a different James Neil. I note that a James Neil and Margaret Thomson's contract or marriage is recorded in the Shotts OPR on 7-1-1738. Where the prospective bride and groom were from different parishes there should be (and often is) a record in both places. As it is so close in time to the entry in New Monkland, it might be the same man. The only way to know is to look up the Shotts entry and see if it says "James Neil in New Monkland parish and Margaret Thomson in this parish".

The kind of thing that would lead to you losing your pledges was not going ahead with the marriage, delaying the marriage significantly beyond the official forty days, discovering the bride was clearly pregnant or improper behaviour (promiscuous dancing etc.) at the wedding.

A regular marriage was one by the parish minister after the banns had been read three times. An irregular marriage was by another clergyman without banns being read. When this happened the couple were called before the kirk session, rebuked and usually fined.

[Gateaux23]

Just to end the story of James Neil for anyone that like the details of these things, here are some of those details.

He was married to Janet Muirhead, somewhere, in about 1739. From the session minutes of Falkirk I have the following:

August 3th 1739
James Neil and Jant. Muirhead reported to be irregularly married are appointed to be cited to this session agt. this day 15 days.

They were summoned twice more and did not show up. Apparently they did do so eventually although there is no entry for them in the minutes to describe what happened. That's unfortunate because the Falkirk session minutes often provide nice biographical details for these things.

In the marriage OPR's for Falkirk is found:

Nov 28th 1739
William Grindlay and Margt. Hopkins also James Neil and Jant. Muirhead having cleard. their dues their for irregular marriages offered testificates of the same to the Session which were not sustained because informal

His son, my 5th Great grandfather, did pretty much the same thing and was "suitably exhorted and received a Sessional rebuke for their irregular behaviour".

N.B. James Neil born in New Monkland and moved between New Monkland, Slamannan and Falkirk a few times.