Rebuked by the Church?

[Pandabean]

I managed to get hold of an OPR of one of my many g's grandfathers?

http://www.talkingscot.com/gallery/disp ... p?pos=-931

I am having difficulty reading it but i have most of as:

Greenlees William and Elizabeth Peat were irregularly married at Edin(?) on the 12th Jany 1804 the parties(?) ?uknown word? before the ?unkown word? on the 20th Nov 1814, were rebucked(?) and had their names confirmed by the Rev S? Moodie?


If it is rebucked, then why would this happen and would their also be an entry in 1804 that may have a parents names or even job?

[LesleyB]

Hi Pandabean

• Greenlees William and Elizabeth Peat were irregularly married at Edin [Edinburgh - typically shortened form, see raised letter at end of word] on the 12th Jany 1804 the parties compeared [presented themsleves] before the session [kirk session] the 20th November 1814 were rebuked [told off] and had their marriage confirmed by the Rev L Moodie.

If it is rebucked, then why would this happen...

My take on this would be: The couple had an irregular marrige - that is, they were married in law, but not in the church. The church used to get pretty upset about this kind of thing, so once it was found out, they were brought in for questioning by the Kirk Session, told off and the church then confirmed their marriage as having now occurred in the eyes of the church.
There is more about irregular marrige here, which saves me a bit of typing!
http://talkingscot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3726

... and would their also be an entry in 1804 that may have a parents names or even job?

Doubt it - the only irregular marriage I have from around that date is very breif in the info it gives. The only extra is the name of a witness, who, from what I understand about irregular marriages may just have been someone who happend to be passing at the time!
best wishes
Lesley

[Pandabean]

Thanks Lesley, do reckon there would be an entry for 1804 as well that would then have a form of an RCE telling of the latter marriage?

[LesleyB]

Hi Pandabean
You beat me to it - I've just tried to answer that one in the above post!

I doubt somehow that there would be more to be found, unless a record of the irregular marriage was noted -some were. Even then I doubt there would be much detail.

Best wishes
Lesley

[paddyscar]

There is a record of this marriage in Nov. 1804 in the OPRs, so would this be the same record you've displayed? I'm asking because of the reference to 1814 on the document.

There are 1 page each for their names in the OPRs Births and Baptisms

William Greenlees - male- born 1 Jan 1770 and 31 Dec 1790 : 9 hits Elizabeth Peat - female- born 1 Jan 1770 and 31 Dec 1790 : 10 hits

Perhaps you can narrow it down by location, and come up with at least the parent's names.

Frances

[LesleyB]

Hi Frances
You are right - there is mention on the IGI:

• WILLIAM GREENLEES
  Marriages:
  Spouse: ELIZABETH PEAT Family
  Marriage: 12 JAN 1804 Inveresk With Musselburgh, Midlothian, Scotland

extract: batch M195027

What parish was the later document (1814) from Pandabean?

I wonder if they had been married in church, moved parishes & then had problems convincing the new parish that they had been married in church? Communications between parishes was pretty good back then - a kind of invisible network, and it was difficult to escape detection.....
If it was necessary to know what the situation was in a previous parish for a newcomer to the area, a the session would generally contact the previous parish and be gven the answer!

Or I wonder if it is just a case of a batch of some irregular marriages being entered into the IGI, just as there are other marriages there which are not OPR records, such some of the Secessionist churches. Was it the IGI you saw it Frances, or elsewhere? This seems the more likely explantation, as, for example this marriage:

• JAMES NIMMO - International Genealogical Index
  Gender: Male Marriage: 11 JUL 1741 South Leith, Midlothian, Scotland

was irregular, yet it is on the IGI... you can't tell it is irregular from the IGI, but I know it is!!

Or, at the point where the above couple are rebuked, (1814) their marriage seems to have been retrospectively blessed by the church and at that point it may well appear in the OPR, as above, even though it occurred 10 years earlier. As they also appear on SP in 1804, I rather suspect this is what has happened here...

Best wishes
Lesley

[Pandabean]

Frances -
I have had no luck breaking the William Greenlees barrier. He seems to have moved from either Renfrewshire or Campbelltown area. Me and my cousins can't tell. He did die in 1823, someone checked this out for a cousin, so we can't tell where he was from as he wasnt on the censuses.

He did have one son a John Thorburn Greenlees who latter had his name changed to William. The thorburns are linked in with the Greenlees line for a few generations.

I did however have luck tracing a Thorburn and Peat marriage in the late 1700's and guessed they might have been related. I realy should write proper notes down when working with the IGI.

If you know of a way to trace William back to the 1770's then let me know, as my cousins and I can't think of a way.

Lesley
The latter certificate was extracted from Inveresk, Midlothian. I am sure that you know Inveresk is part of Musselburgh.


Edit - Just had a look through my notes and their son was born 25th Oct 1814.

[LesleyB]

Hi Pandabean
I suspect then, if you were to go looking for the marriage in the OPR you will find the text you quoted above, entered in the book (for Inveresk) in 1814, not 1804. My guess would be that it is listed in both IGI & SP as 1804 as that is when the (irregular) marriage is stated to have happened (in the later enty in the OPR) but it will not appear in the OPR in 1804, as it was not "confirmed" by the church until 1814!

BIG clue may be the birth of that child - they may have wished to have him christened, been asked to provide proof of marriage and only then did their irregular marriage come under the all-seeing eye of the kirk!!
Best wishes
Lesley

[paddyscar]

While I agree with Lesley, that it would be more likely to find the record in 1814, that wasn’t the case.

…. Was it the IGI you saw it Frances, or elsewhere?

ScotlandsPeople OPRs gave up the marriage for January 12,1804 between William Greenlees and Elizabeth Peat. I checked SP OPRs for anything for them in 1814, when the church session confirmed their marriage, but could find nothing – even checked into Feb. 1805, in case it was delayed going through channels.

I did not enter locations/parishes/districts for any searches initially. When I went back in to verify, I added Midlothian to the search and then no record was retrieved. This would suggest that they had moved to Midlothian after 1804 and were subsequently confirmed there.

I have had no luck breaking the William Greenlees barrier. He seems to have moved from either Renfrewshire or Campbelltown area ... If you know of a way to trace William back to the 1770's then let me know… .

Then I would think the OPR marriage on ScotlandsPeople website would give you at least where they were married and you can then see which of the Williams and Elizabeths listed in ScotlandsPeople OPR births and baptisms would be your most likely.

He did have one son a John Thorburn Greenlees who latter had his name changed to William. The thorburns are linked in with the Greenlees line … their son was born 25th Oct 1814.

There is a John Thorburn Greenlees listed as Christened 1939 http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... mesIGI.htm

Hopefully this will help,

Frances

[DavidWW]

From the extract from the OPR (or is it the kirk session records?) it's clear that the marriage couldn't have been registered in the OPR before 1814, and I'm unsure as to GROS practice when indexing such a record.

The 1804 entry derives from the fact that the information on the original irregular marriage in 1804 has been extracted from the 1814 record and entered in IGI.

I've seen similar examples in pre-1855 and post-1854 records where the date of the event has been extracted for IGI, not the much later date of the recording/registration.

David