Isobel Davidson wrote: > Have you seen the gravestone at Ellon? From the MI index there appear to be > 2 Mary Anns on it with the same death date. I can go and look - if it is > not buried under more snow! Two points of warning: The entries in the original MI Index were for the "unpublished" (and therefore possibly incomplete) transcription for Ellon. The dual entry may refer to two different individuals, but may mean simply that she appears on the stone as "Mary Ann Smith or Brown" (or whatever the relevant names are). In such cases, the MI Index will include entries under both surnames. Gavin Bell MI Index Co-ordinator ANESFHS

Anne Evans wrote: > Hello all On a very indistinctly copy of the hand written > certificate of marriage my George Thompson Morrison states he was > born in Aberdeen, Scotland. States his father George Thompson > Morrison and mother Margaret formerly Henderson. Geo. would have > been born about 1820-22. Also indistinct. I have not been able to > find any family with the right combination of names and dates. He was > married in Victoria, Australia in 1857 to Sarah Willis. They came to > NZ and I have problems there too but not on this list. !!!! Any > direction as to where next would be most welcome. Do you know when he came to Australia? It might be worth checking whether you can find him in the 1851 Census in Scotland. This is available via transcriptions of variable quality (and cost to access) but I would try www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk, the online arm of the Registrar General, who holds the original records, and offers images of them online. One cautionary thought - do you know what the Australian registrar asked concerning "Place of Birth"? In Scotland, this is always given in terms of parish, which narrows things down quite well - but "Aberdeen" is not the name of a parish. My suspicion is that on his Marriage Certificate, "Aberdeen" might mean, in effect "the nearest large town that was near your birthplace and that a non-Scot might have heard." Regarding the names themselves - did George (b 1820-22) have exactly the same name as his father? And did they both have ThomPson (with a "P" as a the middle name? Middle names were not common in Scotland in the early 19th century, and "Thomson" is much more commonly found in Scotland without the intrusive "P". So when searching, I would look for "George Thomson" (although, of course, that was a relatively common name). Gavin Bell

Have you seen the gravestone at Ellon? From the MI index there appear to be 2 Mary Anns on it with the same death date. I can go and look - if it is not buried under more snow! Isobel Davidson

Hi fellow listers, As I have not received a response I thought I would beg your indulgence and try again and forward my original email. Regards, Nigel Boundy Western Australia ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Nigel Boundy <nigelbb@yahoo.com> To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 11:16:27 AM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Black Family of Banff Greetings from Western Australia Listers, I have a Janet Black whoi married Neil Fletcher in Macduff in 1832. Any chance of a connection Chrissy? Regards, Nigel Boundy Wanneroo, WA ----- Original Message ---- From: "jandcwellborne@bigpond.com" <jandcwellborne@bigpond.com> To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 5:40:07 AM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Black Family of Banff " I am reposting my BLACK research interest living in Duff Street, Gamrie, Banff." "Duff Street, Gamrie" probably means "Duff Street, Macduff". " Thank you Gavin for the Information on Duff Street it is much appreciaate I will be in Banff in May this year and hope to find some of these elusive Ancesters. Cheers Chrissy Wellborne Bundaberg Australia Subject: ABERDEEN Digest, Vol 5, Issue 44> Message: 3 Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:44:23 +0000 From: Gavin Bell <g.bell@which.net> known Children ... 2.Alexander BLACK born c 1791 Gamrie BANFF  dies before 1861 Gamrie Banff?  occupation in the 1841 census a wright , living in Duff Street, Gamrie, Banff. married Helen FORDYCE in 1817..Three known Children Alexander BLACK George BLACK ....marries Jane LEASK no known children..her parents George LEASK and Jane GREIG William BLACK "Duff Street, Gamrie" probably means "Duff Street, Macduff".  The western end of the parish of Gamrie (known as Doune or Down) was semi-independent from the later 18th century, when the then Earl of Fife paid for a new church (Doune Kirk) overlooking the town which was, in his honour, renamed Macduff.  This administrative independence seems to have been temporarily abolished when civil registration started in 1855, with Doune/Macduff being re-integrated into the Registration District of Gamrie.  In 1882 Macduff was set up as a separate Registration District. The MIs for Doune Kirk list several BLACKs. Gavin Bell -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 4869 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

John Hardy wrote: > ... > The web site for the Scottish Law Commission's Report on Family Law > of 1992 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc11/rfl-03.asp states > that "There are never more than a few declarators of marriage by > cohabitation with habit and repute per year. 3 Section 21 of the > Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 requires the principal clerk at the > Court of Session to send to the Registrar General for Scotland > details of any decree of declarator of marriage by cohabitation with > habit and repute including "the date, as determined by the court, on > which the marriage was constituted" so that the marriage can be > registered. 3. Thank you! That was the Holy Grail, the Missing Link, whatever you want to call it. Although I would still be interested to know what sort of date the court was liable to "determine" - was it the start of the cohabitation, or the 5th anniversary, or what? We have, in the course of this thread, heard of a (sadly anecdotal) case where a cohabitation was entered upon bigamously by one of the parties, but where the original spouse of the bigamist subsequently died, freeing him to enter into a new union. He subsequently abandoned his new partner, but she successfully sued for a declarator of marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute. When would such a marriage be deemed to start? From the date of the first wife's death? Gavin Bell

Gavin Marriage by 'Habit and Repute' and the other forms of proof have a long history dating back to medieval Canon Law. They were used when there was a dispute where proof of a marriage was required e.g. the rights of the widow or the legitimacy of any children needed to be established. The fact of the marriage was the decision of the Court and there was no requirement for or need for Registration until recently. The most recent cases I have found are an unsuccessful case in 2000 Ackerman vs, Blackburn http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/019_13_98.html and a successful one Doherty vs Vosilius http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/08_3_96.html The web site for the Scottish Law Commission's Report on Family Law of 1992 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc11/rfl-03.asp states that "There are never more than a few declarators of marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute per year. 3 Section 21 of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 requires the principal clerk at the Court of Session to send to the Registrar General for Scotland details of any decree of declarator of marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute including "the date, as determined by the court, on which the marriage was constituted" so that the marriage can be registered. 3. The average since 1961 has been between 3 and 4 a year. Annual Reports of Registrar General for Scotland." In the Registrars reports there is table included as 7.6 at http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/publications-and-data/vital-events/vital-events-reference-tables-2007/section-7-marriages.html which gives the number of irregular marriage since 1946. There were 5 in 2007, the latest year on the table. Their notes state " By the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1939, which came into operation on 1 July 1940, civil marriages were introduced and irregular marriages, other than marriages by cohabitation with habit and repute, were abolished. Although two of the three types of irregular marriage were abolished in 1940 all three types of irregular marriage can be established by Decree of Declarator of the Court of Session." The last sentence probably reflects the more general proposition referred to in footnote 26 in the Commission's discussion: "Sellar, "Marriage by Cohabitation with Habit and Repute: Review and Requiem" (to be published in 1992 in a volume of essays in memory of Professor Sir Thomas Smith). Mr Sellar has kindly made this essay available to us in advance of publication. In it he concludes that "The true position under Scots common law then appears to be that declarator of marriage will be granted if there exist facts and circumstances from which consent to marriage can lawfully be inferred; such facts and circumstances will usually, but need not necessarily, include cohabitation with habit and repute."." "Were you ever involved with a case where a "habit and repute" marriage WAS held to be valid? And if so, was that marriage then recorded in the relevant Register of Marriage?s Gavin Bell John

Folks just a postscript to my long message about Habit and Repute marriages. Under Scots law no marriage could ever be legal if both parties were not free to marry at the time they entered into their union, regular or irregular. Equally no child born of the union between two people could ever be made legitimate if its parents were not free to marry at the time of its birth. So if one parent was married at the time a child was born out of wedlock, even if the parents subsequently married, that child could never be legitimate under Scots law. I think English law might be different but then it is not based on Roman Law unlike Scots law and most mainland European legal systems which all belong to the "Romano-Dutch" school of law. There are 2 exceptions. An illegitimate child could be legitimated by 1) Act of Parliament or 2) Royal Warrant from the Monarch. There is an interesting overseas example in modern times. Prince Rainier of Monaco (he who was married to Grace Kelly) was the son of the illegitimate daughter and only child of his grandfather Louis II of Monaco. Her father subsequently legitimated her so Rainier could succeed to the throne, which obviously he did. I do not understand why his son Prince Albert could not do exactly the same thing with his own son but that is for another place to discuss. Mark

Anyone know of any PENTLAND presence in Aberdeen(shire)? Census records states that various children of the Robert PENTLAND (horse dealer in 1841, also a publican and spirit dealer, died bef 1851) & Helen MOFFAT (were born in Aberdeenshire (1851) or Aberdeen (1871)). Peter PENTLAND b abt 1829 John PENTLAND b abt 1831 Alex PENTLAND b abt 1833 all were Packing Box makers. David PENTLAND b abt 1824, a lithographer printer, stated he was born in Dundee. I cannot find any records in Aberdeen(shire). Most records of this family show them in Glasgow, but I'm looking for a Liberton, MLN connection for Robert PENTLAND, where (it would seem) the son Peter PENTLAND inherited a cottage from his uncle Peter PENTLAND. Helen MOFFAT was born in Dalkeith, MLN. Howard Geddes

I am a member of the ANESFHS (17068) My maiden name was WILSON. I asked this same query 2 years ago without success so I thought I would try again. New information may be available. My immediate interest lies with James WILSON born 1810 King Edward, Aberdeenshire.He married Isabella FORBES in 9 Dec 1846 in Huntly . James died 9 Oct 1888 age 78 as per death certificate at 9 Batcham St. Forres, Elgin County now Moray. I have searched and searched and cannot find any details of his birth. Maybe he was illigitimate I do not know. One of James WILSON's sons, James born 1860 in parish of Banff, married Isabella McKay in 1887 at Aberchirder (Foggieloan). They had a family and lived, worked and died at Aberchirder. One of their sons was my grandfather. I never knew him and have only this past year learnt of him etc. I really want to know more about my WILSON ancestors but without knowing for certain who James WILSON's ( born 1810) parents were I cannot with any certainty research back any further. I am flying out to Canada and USA this June to meet up with newly found relatives, i.e nieces of my grandfather. They would love to know more about their WILSON Scots ancestry but as yet I get stuck when I get back to 1810. Any help you can give me will be greatly appreciated. Kind regards Margaret Rose nee WILSON 17068

Hi Laura Many, many thanks for all your hard work on this for us. I did look at the 1880 Census some time ago but couldn't find any James BISHOP that seemed to fit. We have no clue what age James may have been. He and Mary Ann MELDRUM married in 1874 when she was 30 +/- 1. They had their child in 1876. Mary Ann was in the Ellon Censuses in 1871 and 1881 so, unless her parents lied, she was only in Illinois between those dates. That sets the parameters of our search. The reason I say "unless her parents lied" is that there is a record of James BISHOP and Mary BISHOP on a boat to the US in 1870 but ... If this is our couple, a] Mary's parents must have lied to the enumerator in Ellon in 1871 and b] they weren't yet married (not that either of these things would be inconceivable!). The James you have found in Cook County, born in NY, aged 28 in 1880 would have been the right sort of age if 8 years younger than his wife is allowable! Also his "occupation" is not as we understand it. These are my notes on your text: > Winnetka is about 14 miles north of Chicago also in Cook County, Illinois. We intend visiting the records offices there, later this year. > James Bishop 1880 Census age 35 wife Maria age could be 30, 32 or 38 handwriting is bad.  I think it is 30.  Children are Ella 8, Willie 7, and Edward  5.  James is listed as Head Master US Guards (not sure what that is) and as born in NY NY.  He is living in Lake, Cook County, Illinois. I think the ages of the children rule him out. Our Mary would have been c.35 at that date. > Also in 1880 living in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois is James 28 also born in NY NY. He works in a retail fur store.  He is living with a lot of people who have different last names so I think this is a boarding house and the head is Henry Clements and his wife Nettie. Possible, except our James is stated as a Joiner (= carpenter) or Building Mason on later records in Scotland and this one would have been 8 years younger than Mary Ann. > Also in 1880 in Chicago is a J A Bishop age 25 born in Illinois a farmer. Too young to have married in 1874? And occupation is different. > There is no 1890 US Census as it was destroyed by water / fire. How frustrating! > 1900 >There is a J H Bishop age 61 and a wife Mary both of them born in England. No children are listed.   He is listed as retired.  They live 25th Ward of Chicago. Our Mary Ann was 100% certainly back in Scotland by then! > There is a James not married born in Indiana age 30 > There is a James age 23 born in England  living in Proviso Township but his wife is listed as Jane... > There is a James age 28 born in England living in 6th ward of Chicago. Wife Anna and son Charles. > There is a James age 39 born in PA (Pennsylvania) living in 4th ward of Chicago wife is Mlisa (Melissa?) > There is a James F age 29 born in IL listed as single... All of the above would be too young to have married in 1874. > There is a James age 46 born in IL (Illinois) living in 1st ward of Chicago a teamster married but he is rooming; his wife is not with him. > There is James A age 49 born in IL 32nd  ward of Chicago wife is Isabelle These could be the same guys as were in the 1880 Census although the ages are a bit off and the details are different (middle initials and occupations). > There is a James M age 55 born in NY wife is Marie children are William 27 , John 25 , Roy 18  He is a landlord.  Born Feb 1845. Apart from the children William & John, born around the time of our guy's marriage & fatherhood, this could have been right. Mary Ann MELDRUM was born in c.1844 so she is about the same age. However the ages of this family seem to preclude him being ours. > There are between 400 and 500 James Bishop listings in the 1900 US Census nationwide. Ouch!! > Is there an age range or birthplace that is known to help narrow it down? Only his marriage 4 May 1874 in Cook County and birth of his daughter 24 April 1876 in Richmond IL give us any clues about James BISHOP. His wife's death certificate and his daughter's marriage certificate show him as a Joiner. His stepson's marriage certificate says James was a Building Mason. And that's all she wrote! :-)) Thanks again for all the information, Laura. It'll give us some basic information to work with when we get out there. -- Best wishes Ray ********************************************************** >From Ray Hennessy Forenames website: www.whatsinaname.net Preferred Email address: ray@whatsinaname.net Hints for Scotland's People at http://bit.ly/WIAN-SCP **********************************************************

Mark wrote, <<... Ultimately she [the cohabitee] lost [her claim to inherit] because the daughter [presumably of an earlier regular marriage] said she had never been more than her father's "bide in" i.e. cohabitee. ..... Needless to say there was a house at stake. ....>> The point I made earlier regarding 'habit and repute' and inheritance rights was not based on any legal expertise. It is my understanding that although the cohabitee has no such inheritance rights any children of that relationship do have such rights. Maybe Mark could comment further. Sandy ________________________________ From: Mark Sutherland-Fisher <info@highland-family-heritage.co.uk> To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, 22 February, 2010 6:09:29 Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] marriages book: Habit and Repute Evening everyone, As it happens I took what was probably one of the last cases of a "habit and repute" marriage to the Court of Session in the late 1980s for a Ross-shire client who had lived with her "husband" for around a decade. She had originally been his housekeeper but became known as his wife. His daughter opposed the claim and so it was fought out in Scotland's highest court of first instance. Ultimately she lost because the daughter said she had never been more than her father's "bide in" i.e. cohabitee. Many other witnesses had said they lived socially as a married couple and were called as such. Needless to say there was a house at stake. Mark -----Original Message----- From: aberdeen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:aberdeen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Gordon Johnson Sent: 21 February 2010 08:26 To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] marriages book ** The "habit and repute" version appears to be finalised by a court case of one kind or another, where the court rules the marriage legal; and the couple normally have been together for a long time (10 years plus).  I think the most common case is one of inheritance. The promise subsequente copula version seems to revolve around witnesses being present at the declaration, and the witnesses being reliable. One case showed that a witness was an employee of the man and was discounted as unreliable. Once again, it is a court case which proves/disproves the marriage. Because the book is concerned with legal cases, I suspect that it would ignore instances where the marriage had been registered. This is my (condensed) reading of the book. Gordon. On 21/02/2010 08:00, aberdeen-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Gordon Johnson wrote: >> >  ** According to the book "Marriages, regular and irregular", by "an >> >  Advocate" (William Hodge, Glasgow, 1893), any of these irregular >> >  marriages only are legal if both parties are free to marry, and both >> >    consent to the apparent marriage. > That sounds like an interesting book. > > Does he say anything about the mechanics of Irregular Marriages, and in > particular, how a marriage "with habit and repute" or by "promise > 'subsequente copula'" might have been brought in line with the separate > legal requirement to register marriages? > > The mechanism for having marriages "by declaration" accepted by the > Registrar are fairly well known, but I am puzzled as to how the other > two types might have been homologated - or how the "deserted wife" of > such a marriage might have gone about having her errant "husband" > brought back into the conjugal fold. > > > Gavin Bell ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Mark Sutherland-Fisher wrote: > Evening everyone, As it happens I took what was probably one of the > last cases of a "habit and repute" marriage to the Court of Session > in the late 1980s for a Ross-shire client who had lived with her > "husband" for around a decade. She had originally been his > housekeeper but became known as his wife. His daughter opposed the > claim and so it was fought out in Scotland's highest court of first > instance. Ultimately she lost because the daughter said she had never > been more than her father's "bide in" i.e. cohabitee. Many other > witnesses had said they lived socially as a married couple and were > called as such. Needless to say there was a house at stake. Win some, lose some. Were you ever involved with a case where a "habit and repute" marriage WAS held to be valid? And if so, was that marriage then recorded in the relevant Register of Marriages? Gavin Bell

Hi Ray, Winnetka is about 14 miles north of Chicago also in Cook County, Illinois.  I found this in US Census Records: James Bishop 1880 Census age 35 wife Maria age could be 30, 32 or 38 handwriting is bad.  I think it is 30.  Children are Ella 8, Willie 7, and Edward  5.  James is listed as Head Master US Guards (not sure what that is) and as born in NY NY.  He is living in Lake, Cook County, Illinois. Also in 1880 living in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois is James 28 also born in NY NY. He works in a retail fur store.  He is living with a lot of people who have different last names so I think this is a bording house and the head is Henry Clements and his wife Nettie.  Also in 1880 in Chicago is a J A Bishop age 25 born in Illinois a farmer.  Once again living with a lot of different people so probably a boarding house (he is listed as a boarder) run by John Fredine (or something like that). There is no 1890 US Census as it was destroyed by water / fire.  1900 There is a J H Bishop age 61 and a wife Mary both of them born in England.  No children are listed.   He is listed as retired.  They live 25th Ward of Chicago. There is a James not married born in Indiana age 30 There is a James age 23 born in England  living in Proviso Township but his wife is listed as Jane... There is a James age 28 born in England living in 6th ward of Chicago. Wife Anna and son Charles. There is a James age 39 born in PA (Pennsylvania) living in 4th ward of Chicago wife is Mlisa (Melissa?) There is a James age 46 born in IL (Illinois) living in 1st ward of Chicago a teamster married but he is rooming his wife is not with him.  There is James A age 49 born in IL 32nd  ward of Chicago wife is Isabelle There is a James F age 29 born in IL listed as single... There is a Jame M age 55 born in NY wife is Marie children are William 27 , John 25 , Roy 18  He is a landlord.  Born Feb 1845. There are between 400 and 500 James Bishop listings in the 1900 US Census nationwide.  Is there an age range or birthplace that is known to help narrow it down? Laura ________________________________ From: Ray Hennessy <ray@whatsinaname.net> To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 9:28:52 AM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] DEATH REG. INFO. (and Illinois connections) Thanks George We actually have the original marriage certificate which by some miracle was preserved through 130 years and many hands so we know what there is to know about the marriage.  Unfortunately there is very little information on it except that James was from Winnetka and the marriage was in Cook County.  We also have an index entry of the birth of their daughter in Richmond IL. As we have no age for James BISHOP finding him is a bit hit or miss. I'm hoping we will be able to find an entry on the 1870 or 1880 Census records giving an age but so far no luck.  I'll have a scan on the LDS site, thanks, and see where that gets me. We are also trying to find out how and when Mary MELDRUM went to the US and whether she took her young son [Thomas Anderson KING, born 1867] with her.  It's all very obscure but we keep on trying. Thanks again to you and the others who have offered help& advice Ray On 21 February 2010 14:45, George Brander <george.brander@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ray > > I don't know if you have tried this site in your search for James Bishop > http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#p=home > > As the name implies it is a pilot website of the LDS Church and I find it pretty amazing for US and Canadian records. I had a great uncle who just vanished from records after 1871 but I found him in San Francisco in the 1900 USA census records on this site. Unfortunately he then disappears again but this may be due to the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906 which destroyed a lot of documents. > > However I did turn up the actual image of the marriage licence of James Bishop and Mary Meldrum in Cook County, Illinois and the signed off date of 4 May 1874. The 1900 census for Cook County has a James Bishop born Illinois Aug 1954 and classed as Widower. The 1860 census has a James Bishop age 6 at Macoupin, Illinois possibly the same fellow. > > The other thing I like about the pilot site is that it is free and most of the images which can be downloaded are also free > > Regards > > George > > -- > George Brander > Torre de la Horadada > España ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Lynne Scotland's People is only a "subscription site" in that you have to pay to use it but you pay for the amount you use it, not a fixed sub like Ancestry. Also the results are far more reliable for Scottish records. I've put some notes on my website [see below] but basically you pay 6GBP [or the equivalent in one of a number of currencies] and for that you get 30 credits and 90 days access. The credits buy you hit lists [1 credit for a page of up to 25 hits] and images [5 credits for each image you download]. In effect you can get 5 hit list pages and 5 images for your initial fee. You can buy more credits at any time and your 90 days restarts. If you want to get images of the other Census entries and the various BMD certificates, you might need to be a bit crafty in selecting your search [=hit-list] criteria to get the maximum useful results. Be lucky! -- Best wishes Ray ********************************************************** >From Ray Hennessy Forenames website: www.whatsinaname.net Preferred Email address: ray@whatsinaname.net Hints for Scotland's People at http://bit.ly/WIAN-SCP **********************************************************

Evening everyone, As it happens I took what was probably one of the last cases of a "habit and repute" marriage to the Court of Session in the late 1980s for a Ross-shire client who had lived with her "husband" for around a decade. She had originally been his housekeeper but became known as his wife. His daughter opposed the claim and so it was fought out in Scotland's highest court of first instance. Ultimately she lost because the daughter said she had never been more than her father's "bide in" i.e. cohabitee. Many other witnesses had said they lived socially as a married couple and were called as such. Needless to say there was a house at stake. Mark -----Original Message----- From: aberdeen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:aberdeen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Gordon Johnson Sent: 21 February 2010 08:26 To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] marriages book ** The "habit and repute" version appears to be finalised by a court case of one kind or another, where the court rules the marriage legal; and the couple normally have been together for a long time (10 years plus). I think the most common case is one of inheritance. The promise subsequente copula version seems to revolve around witnesses being present at the declaration, and the witnesses being reliable. One case showed that a witness was an employee of the man and was discounted as unreliable. Once again, it is a court case which proves/disproves the marriage. Because the book is concerned with legal cases, I suspect that it would ignore instances where the marriage had been registered. This is my (condensed) reading of the book. Gordon. On 21/02/2010 08:00, aberdeen-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Gordon Johnson wrote: >> > ** According to the book "Marriages, regular and irregular", by "an >> > Advocate" (William Hodge, Glasgow, 1893), any of these irregular >> > marriages only are legal if both parties are free to marry, and both >> > consent to the apparent marriage. > That sounds like an interesting book. > > Does he say anything about the mechanics of Irregular Marriages, and in > particular, how a marriage "with habit and repute" or by "promise > 'subsequente copula'" might have been brought in line with the separate > legal requirement to register marriages? > > The mechanism for having marriages "by declaration" accepted by the > Registrar are fairly well known, but I am puzzled as to how the other > two types might have been homologated - or how the "deserted wife" of > such a marriage might have gone about having her errant "husband" > brought back into the conjugal fold. > > > Gavin Bell ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Lynne Uhler wrote: > Thank you, Gavin: > > Oddly enough, Eliza was born in ~1877 to Christian Murray Nicol > [b.1830 in Longside] and her husband, George Nicol [b. 1817 in Logie > Buchan] and she was their last child. Eliza was 4 in the 1881 > census, 14 in the 1891 census and now '23' on this 1901. Christian > Murray Nicol & her husband, George Nicol, also had a daughter > Christian, b. ~1847 in Longside. Daughter Christian was 3 on the > 1851 census; 13 on the 1861 census, a servant in another household in > 1871. > > Since both mother and daughter Christians were b. Longside and the > only person in this constellation with the right age and location is > Eliza at age 23, I am hoping to get a glimpse of the original to then > make a more educated judgment. > > Thank you for the suggestion I look on Scotland's People. I > understood them to be a subscription site As, I understand, is Ancestry. But Scotlandspeople is the online agent of the Registrar General for Scotland, who holds all the original records of births, deaths and marriages, and the originals of all the Censuses. Their indexes are also a great deal more reliable than Ancestry's, and for Scottish records from 1855 on, they are really the only place worth looking. Gavin Bell

Lynne Uhler wrote: > I've found a transcription on Ancestry.com and believe it's wrong, but > without the actual image, cannot confirm it. 1901 census living on > Charlotte St., Fraserburg, household #202. Transcription says: > Christian Nicol, 42, b. Longside > Elisa Nicol, 23, b. Savoch > relationship = daughter > > If some kind soul has access to the actual image, would you please check > Christian Nicol's age for me. If she is mother to Eliza, her age > should be about 71. If she is instead Eliza's older sister Christian, > her age would be 55 [and she'd be low-balling her age as 42]. Are you sure about that? A mother aged 71 when her daughter was 23 would mean that the daughter was born when the mother was 48 - not impossible, but unlikely. And sisters whose ages differ by 32 years (55 minus 23) is also on the extreme edge of the biologically feasible. I would be more inclined to take the information at face value (even though it is from an Ancestry transcription) namely that Christian named was, indeed, 42, and had, aged 19, borne a daughter now aged 23. There may well be a second "Christian Nichol" aged 71 somewhere, and another aged 55 - the combination of names is unlikely to be unique. > I want to > confirm that Christian Nicol b. Longside 1830 is still alive in 1901. The easiest and most reliable way to confirm the all the relevant relationships would be via Scotlandspeople (which will also give you access to the Census image): (1) If Christian was aged 42 in 1901, then she would have been born in 1858-9, and her birth will be recorded in the Statutory Registers. (2) Elisa's birth will also be recorded, along with the names of her parents. (3) If the Christian who was born in 1830 survived until at least 1855, then her death should also be recorded. Gavin Bell

I read recently of "cohabitants" having most of the legal rights of legally married spouses but these rights are valid only as long as the couple stay together. This now extends to same sex cohabitants. Think of the confusion for family historians in a hundred years time! In my younger days in Aberdeen "cohabitants" were known as "bidie-ins" but the term was usually applicable to women (by my mother anyway, my authority in these days) . George On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:10 PM, D MCKENZIE <lor633@btinternet.com> wrote: > Does any one actually know of a couple who were married by habit and > repute? Would be intersesting to hear of this. > Lorraine > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "wrentony@ntlworld.com" <wrentony@ntlworld.com> > To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com > Sent: Sunday, 21 February, 2010 15:51:43 > Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Marriage by Habit and REpute > > Gavin, > > I'm afraid this is probably just a story, told me by my father about 50 > years ago. However, I think he did claim that he had read it in a > newspaper. > > Tony > > ---- Gavin Bell <g.bell@which.net> wrote: > > wrentony@ntlworld.com wrote: > > > > > "Both consent"? I suppose that makes nonsense of one of my favourite > > > stories:- > > > > > > Couple had been married for many years, but husband wanted out. He > > > confessed to bigamy, having been married some years previous to the > > > present "marriage". Present marriage was declared invalid, and > > > husband jailed. Meanwhile first wife had died. Second "wife" then > > > claimed marriage by repute, and this was upheld. > > > > > > That is a good one. And I don't see that the need for consent would in > > any way invalidate the constitution of a marriage "by habit and repute" > > - in the nature of things, this is not an event, but a process, and is > > validated largely by the general behavious of the parties over a period > > of time, and their reception in the community. The man consented to the > > arrangement at the outset, and I am fairly sure that a later change of > > mind would be disregarded by the courts. In fact, one of the other > > forms of irregular marriage "promise 'subsequently copula'" is designed > > specifically to catch cheating male partners. > > > > But do you by any chance have chapter and verse for this story? - I'm > > not seeking to cast doubt, but I would be very interested to learn the > > nuts-and-bolts of it. > > > > For instance, a fairly basic principle of marriage is that both parties > > must, at the time of the marriage, be free to marry each other (ie, over > > 16, not related to each other in any of the forbidden degrees, and not > > married to anyone else). > > > > So I would be very interested to know the relative dates of various > > events, including: > > > > - the "husband's" abandonment of his first (presumably valid?) marriage > > - the first wife's death > > - the date of the second (apparently valid?) marriage > > - "husband's" admission of bigamy and jailing > > - declaration of marriage "by habit and repute" > > > > I would also be interested to know (assuming this took place post-1855) > > whether and how the marriage was then registered. > > > > > > Gavin Bell > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- George Brander Torre de la Horadada España

** Legally, if a man was already married and his first wife living, ANY subsequent marriage, in whatever form, is invalid. Gordon. On 21/02/2010 15:51, aberdeen-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Couple had been married for many years, but husband wanted out. He confessed to bigamy, having been married some years previous to the present "marriage". Present marriage was declared invalid, and husband jailed. Meanwhile first wife had died. Second "wife" then claimed marriage by repute, and this was upheld.

** The "habit and repute" version appears to be finalised by a court case of one kind or another, where the court rules the marriage legal; and the couple normally have been together for a long time (10 years plus). I think the most common case is one of inheritance. The promise subsequente copula version seems to revolve around witnesses being present at the declaration, and the witnesses being reliable. One case showed that a witness was an employee of the man and was discounted as unreliable. Once again, it is a court case which proves/disproves the marriage. Because the book is concerned with legal cases, I suspect that it would ignore instances where the marriage had been registered. This is my (condensed) reading of the book. Gordon. On 21/02/2010 08:00, aberdeen-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Gordon Johnson wrote: >> > ** According to the book "Marriages, regular and irregular", by "an >> > Advocate" (William Hodge, Glasgow, 1893), any of these irregular >> > marriages only are legal if both parties are free to marry, and both >> > consent to the apparent marriage. > That sounds like an interesting book. > > Does he say anything about the mechanics of Irregular Marriages, and in > particular, how a marriage "with habit and repute" or by "promise > 'subsequente copula'" might have been brought in line with the separate > legal requirement to register marriages? > > The mechanism for having marriages "by declaration" accepted by the > Registrar are fairly well known, but I am puzzled as to how the other > two types might have been homologated - or how the "deserted wife" of > such a marriage might have gone about having her errant "husband" > brought back into the conjugal fold. > > > Gavin Bell