G'day , I have found the following on the D & G Library Archives Historical Indexes - Kirk Sessions. >>> Topic: irregular marriage to Jean Cowan Notes: irregular marriage >>> With a date of 4 March 1777. As there is no record of a marriage in the OPR, although their children were subsequently baptised, would I be correct in assuming that they were actually married on this date - presumably after some sort of penance? Mike CALDER http://members.optusnet.com.au/mikecalder/ Researching: CALDER, DIXON, TUSON, GRACIE D&GFHS #2979

on 10/09/04 09:10 AM, Mike Calder at mikecalder@optusnet.com.au wrote: > G'day , > > I have found the following on the D & G Library Archives Historical > Indexes - Kirk Sessions. > >>>> > Topic: irregular marriage to Jean Cowan > > Notes: irregular marriage >>>> > > With a date of 4 March 1777. > > As there is no record of a marriage in the OPR, although their children > were subsequently baptised, would I be correct in assuming that they > were actually married on this date - presumably after some sort of > penance? > > Mike CALDER > http://members.optusnet.com.au/mikecalder/ > Researching: CALDER, DIXON, TUSON, GRACIE > D&GFHS #2979 > > > ______________________________ Mike, Perhaps the most often encountered citation of "irregular marriage" is that referring to the marriage of a parishioner in another parish without the banns having been pronounced in his home parish. Indeed the irregularity is readily overcome by the expression of remorse and payment of a fine to compensate for the fee the parishioner sought to evade. I assume the charge is leveled only if the parishioner and his bride return to his home parish. In any case, a record of the marriage or banns or both should be found in the bride's parish. Gil Nicol