Marriage in another Parish

[trish1]

The most likely father of my man who died 1 week before civil registration, married in 1810. He married Jan 11 in the parish of Canongate. There is, however a marriage entry for his home parish of Temple which reads as follows

.. appeared before the Session the 21 Jany 1810 and produced a Certificate of their Marriage dated the 11 Jany 1810 Canongate. They were ordained to pay double dues and were dismissed.

This appears to have been a regular marriage at Canongate - although I have not got that OPR image. Was it not allowed to marry in another parish? Or would this be because they didn't call the banns in the groom's home parish?

[paddyscar]

Only a guess here, but having married elsewhere, the double dues may indicate they had to pay where they were married and again to register the marriage with his church.

Frances

[LesleyB]

Hi Trish

The fact that they appeared before the session suggests to me that they were considerd to have commited a wrong-doing, having married in Canongate, but having omitted to have the banns read at Temple. My guess would be double dues was a fine which was twice the price they would have paid for the banns and was a punishment for not keeping Temple "in the know"! However, they were then dismissed, so having paid up, the problem was dealt with and there should have been no further problem.

Best wishes
Lesley

[trish1]

I had always thought not being married - or having an irregular marriage was the issue for the parish - but it seems, as you say Lesley - have to keep the home parish informed. I initially thought the lass may have been well pregnant & perhaps they had "snuck away" to another parish to hide the fact - but the first child was 12 months down the track. The church surely controlled their flock - no wonder they fought hard against civil registration!

Trish

[Russell]

Hi Trish
Just remember that calling Banns was the only way of checking that the marriage was not between two people whose relationship was too close e.g. cousins, or half-brother and sister. They maybe didn't have the knowledge about genetics we have now but they understood that marriage too close to home could have horrible consequences for future off-spring. The Kirk Session were the guardians of our genetic inheritance and in a small parish would know about illegitimate children brought up by 'adoptive' parents as their own might meet up with the legitimate off-spring of a later marriage.
Sometimes a marriage entry might read "Close cousins" which flagged up the potential for problems later.
They (the Session) might come over as a bunch of nosy, prurient old men poking into every detail of your love life but the underlying purpose was actually quite healthy. In a small village everyone knew everything about everybody including who had had a roll in the hay with whom
The poorer you were the cheaper it was to post your Banns. In some places merchants and landowners were charged around £3.00 but ordinary folk could be charged a shilling =D> Still not cheap but kept you on the right side of the moral guardians.

Russell

[LesleyB]

The local parish (and indeed the Kirk Session) woud probably also have been in a position to know if the groom was free to marry - he may have already married or have given a promise to do so....this is another of the reasons banns should have been read, to give everyone a chance to speak up if they knew of a reason the proposed marriage should not go ahead,