Misidentified illegitimate children or just a coincidence?

[scottishlad]

It's evident that they were Travelling People and in the 19th century would have been described as Tinkers (the word is derived from tin, because tinsmithing was a common occupation among Travellers). These days the word Tinker is considered pejorative and offensive.

I wonder whether perhaps they were married in 1851 by a rite peculiar to Travellers, and then in 1862, believing that not to have been a legal marriage, they were married again in a more conventional rite?

There is a RootsChat forum specifically for Travelling People https://www.rootschat.com/forum/travellers/ - someone there may know about the marriage customs of Travellers in Scotland in the 19th century.

Thank you! Yes that is what I’m thinking as well. Must have been something along those lines.

[Forfarian]

I will also say, there is another instance in my tree of a couple having illegitimate children, who are marked as such on their birth certificates with both parents listed, and then a marriage certificate at a later date.

That is the normal procedure.

Is it possible William and Mary were married some other less official way (if that was even a thing)? Or perhaps married in 1851 via a different denomination and then in 1862 remarried through the Church of Scotland? Is that something somebody would have done back then?

All that was needed to make a marriage valid in the eyes of the law was for the couple to declare themselves to be married in the presence of two witnesses. No religious ceremony was required by the law.

Naturally the kirk frowned upon such irregular marriages, and the Kirk Session minutes quite often record a couple being forced to confess and repent of an irregular marriage, mostly because until they had repented and done penance, and of course paid a fine, the kirk could decline to baptise their children.