Author Topic: Marriage Kilmarnock  (Read 512 times)

Offline rederic

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Marriage Kilmarnock
« on: Friday 02 September 22 16:40 BST (UK) »
Jean Johnston Loudoun was born 1817 her parents John Loudoun & Agnes Johnstone married 6 years later in 1823 at Kilmarnock. She married John Strachan 3rd.March 1837 at Kilmarnock. The register says John Strachan in Coal Hall and Jean no name given in. There appears to have not been the usual 3 proclamations.
Does anybody have an explanation for this strange event?
 As a matter of interest they are the ancestors of The Chariots of Fire runner Eric Liddle. ::)

Offline GR2

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,594
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage Kilmarnock
« Reply #1 on: Friday 02 September 22 19:48 BST (UK) »
What appears in marriage registers is very variable and can be inconsistent within the same register. At this period a register usually gives the couple's names and the date they indicated their intention to marry. It usually mentions if one of them was from a different parish. Other information is a bonus. Some session clerks recorded when the banns were read, and some added the fact that the couple had married and when. If you know that the couple were married, then any difference from other entries of the page may just be due to the clerk's poor memory or the notes he is copying from not being clear enough.

Offline rederic

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage Kilmarnock
« Reply #2 on: Friday 02 September 22 21:30 BST (UK) »
Thanks for the quick reply I know everything you say is correct but I have been trying to work out if the Phrase 'name not given in' was added later.
I asked Tom Shaw of EAFHS about it and he said that he had never come across it before.
It seems inconceivable that the brides surname should be missing.
Surely both of then would have been there.

Offline Forfarian

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,103
  • http://www.rootschat.com/links/01ruz/
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage Kilmarnock
« Reply #3 on: Monday 05 September 22 07:36 BST (UK) »
Both should have been named, but although 'inconceivable', it isn't unique. I've seen a few records from which the bride's name is missing.
Never trust anything you find online (especially submitted trees and transcriptions on Ancestry, MyHeritage, FindMyPast and other commercial web sites) unless it's an image of an original document - and even then be wary because errors can and do occur.


Offline ColC

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,629
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage Kilmarnock
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 13 September 22 10:00 BST (UK) »

As mentioned it did occur on occasions, in Jean’s instance I wonder if it was connected to the fact her parents were not married at the time of her baptism?

-----   HANAH   CUMMING MCNEIL   27/09/1825   Kilmarnock
-----   JEAN           JOHN STRACHAN   03/03/1837   Kilmarnock
-----   MARY JANE   THOMAS CARRIE   26/10/1827   Kilmarnock
-----   SARAH   JOHN YOUNG   29/03/1844   Kilmarnock

Colin
Clarke, Trickett, Orton, Lawless, Norton, Detheridge, Kirby, Goodfellow, Wagstaff, Lowe, etc.

Offline rederic

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage Kilmarnock
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday 13 September 22 12:01 BST (UK) »
Very interesting thought also her parents were Scottish Presbyterians, (I don't know if she was) and at the time of her marriage they were living in South Wales. Could these facts have been a reason?
                                                                                      Eric