"marriage lines" 1786.....

[elisabeth]

There's an entry in the Flisk, Fife OPR which has me a bit puzzled.
"1786 May 26-David Chalmers and Betty Barron on this day produced their marriage lines dated Edin. Feb.14th 1786. Paid one shilling to the poor and King's duty"
Does this mean they were actually married in Edinburgh? (I've been searching in Fife for them up to now as that is where their children were born). And if they were married in Edinburgh, what would be the reason for this appearing in the Flisk OPR three months later?
Could their first child being born in November 1786 have anything to do with it?

Elisabeth

[emanday]

Maybe the minister wanted to see proof they were married before he would enter the child in the baptism records as "lawful" rather than "natural" or even "conceived in fornication", as has been found on more than a few OPR's!

[DavidWW]

There's an entry in the Flisk, Fife OPR which has me a bit puzzled.
"1786 May 26-David Chalmers and Betty Barron on this day produced their marriage lines dated Edin. Feb.14th 1786. Paid one shilling to the poor and King's duty"
Does this mean they were actually married in Edinburgh? (I've been searching in Fife for them up to now as that is where their children were born). And if they were married in Edinburgh, what would be the reason for this appearing in the Flisk OPR three months later?
Could their first child being born in November 1786 have anything to do with it?

Elisabeth

A very neat example!!

This 99.9% means that they were married irregularly in Edinburgh, - search on "irregular AND marriage" here on TalkingScot to see details on irregular marriages in Scotland.

A proportion of those who underwent a marriage by declaration did so in the presence of a minister of a secession church, or a minister who had at that time no "charge", i.e. wasn't the minister of any church, - it's known that there were several such ministers offering such a service in the Edinburgh area, for a fee, of course

While a marriage by declaration was perfectly legal in Scots Law until 1939; preferably in the presence of two witnesses, altho' they weren't strictly speaking required by Scots Law, - it just made any eventual formalisation of the marriage more straightforward, - many couples felt more reassured if a minister was involved.

It could have equally been the case that the minister involved here, unnamed, was a secession church minister, but the couple still wanted the marriage recorded in the Old Parochial Register of Flisk of the Established Church of Scotland, - unlikely I'd think as, most often, in such a case, the secession kirk minister is named.

The wording of this Flisk OPR entry is comparatively mild compared to some of the "stronger" OPR entries that there are in relation to such irregular marriages outside the Established Church of Scotland, - "stronger" in the sense of outright condemnation of a couple for having undergone an irregular marriage, however much it was perfectly legal in terms of Scots Law, - since it wasn't at all "legal" in terms of the canonical "laws" of the Established Church of Scotland.

David

[emanday]

Of Course! I'd not thought about that aspect, David!

The wee notebook I started writing these bits of information into has had to be swapped for a swiftly filling up lever arch file

S'wunnerful!

[elisabeth]

Thanks for the help-I've spent the last half hour reading up on Edinburgh irregular marriages. Seems some of the people conducting these marriages weren't averse to putting wrong (i.e. earlier) dates on the marriage lines. Perhaps my pair married on Valentine's Day and had their first child 11 months later, perhaps not.

Elisabeth

[Russell]

Hi Elisabeth

I have been looking through my Watsons from Cellardyke and apparently it was quite common then to nip across the Forth by ferry to Edinburgh and have an irregular marriage performed. Quite legitimate too, but in order to placate parents and other relatives they had to confess their behaviour to the Kirk Session who would accept the marriage and allow a child to be baptised - provided they had some form of documentation that stated that the marriage had taken place.

There were various fall-outs between minister and congregation in several of the Fife parishes which might explain why the local Established Church was flaunted.

An interesting read about one parish is 'A History of Cellardyke and Kilrenny' by Harry Watson. Harry is from the area and is an experienced genealogist so his book addresses lots of local issues.

Russell

[joette]

I have came across this in St Quivock's & also Leswalt.In fact there must have been a "Sunday School" outing as there are several entries as "rowed across & married irregularly by so&so"(similiar dates & same name).They were fined & rebuked but the Marriage recognised & any wains legitimate.

[elisabeth]

Well it's not a journey I would like to undertake, especially in February. It's stories like these that make family history so interesting.
Elisabeth