Anne wrote: > What makes a marriage legal is that it is witnessed by two > other people - hence the custom of marriage by declaration, > which was fairly common until it was abolished some time around > 1930-ish. I think you are arguing a bit ahead of the data, there, Anne. Until the revision of the law which came into effect on 1 July 1940, there were two main types of marriage recognised under the law of Scotland. These were (a) Regular Marriages and (b) Irregular Marriages. The definition of "Regular" had been gradually stretched over the preceding century, but originally, the only Regular Marriage was one solemnised by a Minister of the Kirk of Scotland. Where it was solemnised was not specified, nor (so far as I am aware) was there originally any formal requirement for the ceremnony to be witnessed. There was a requirement that the proclamations be read on three successive Sabbaths before the ceremony (to allow for objections), but once that requirement had been satisfied, they could be married without further ado. In the nature of things, this was geneally a very public proceeding, but none of my sources mention any requirement for the ceremony to be witnessed. Which is why, I suspect, so many marriages appear in the OPRs simply as "A B and X Y having been three times lawfully proclaimed were married" - in other words, the Minister's unsupported word was good enough. Until the 1940 reform, there were three forms of Irregular Marriage. The term is confusing, because, while such unions may not have been much to the liking of the Kirk, they were, in all other respects (eg legitimisation of offspring, inheritance, etc) perfectly valid. These "Irrgular" forms were: (1) marriage by cohabitaion with habit and repute. This meant that, if a couple lived together for a period of time (length unspecified) as if they were married, then the Law deemed that they were. This is still valid. (2) promise 'subsequente copula'. This covered the case where a man promised marriage, and sexual intercourse followed. In the nature of things, this would have been rather difficult to witness, and I suspect may have been rather difficult to prove, had it ever come to court. (3) declaration. Simply declaring yourselves to be man and wife meant that you were. Very oddly, there was no specific requirement that the declaration had to be witnessed - it was left to the court to decide whether such a declaration had occurred - although witnesses would clearly be useful!. So it would appear that there was no specific requirement for witnesses to any act of marriage, whether Regular or Irregular. (My source for all the above is "General Principles of Scots Law", a standard student text-book, by Enid A Marshall). Gavin Bell