Many thanks, Shiela, for passing on this information ... has helped to explain some 'marriage gaps' within my own research. Regards Pat in Western Australia -----Original Message----- From: moray-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:moray-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Pentlands Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2010 1:36 AM To: moray@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [MORAY] Irregular marriages. Hello Alastair The practice was widespread. The following is quoted from the Scottish Record Office book on Scottish Ancestors so if you, or any other listers, have odd queries do get in touch and I shall see if the answer is in this book. 'Irregular Marriages Until 1940, irregular marriages, in the form of a declaration by the parties before witnesses, but not before an established clergyman, were perfectly legal. However, such marriages were frowned upon. The parties might be rebuked by their kirk session and they and their witnesses were liable to be fined. Thus evidence of such marriages may be found in kirk session minutes and in burgh and JP court records. They are further explained in the introduction to Calendar of Irregular Marriages in the South Leith Kirk Session Records 1697-1818 (Scottish Record Society). The Ewart Library in Dumfries is the best source of information about irregular marriages at Gretna Green. The SRO has copies of registers of similar marriages at Lamberton Toll, Berwickshire 1833-1849.' Many went on to marry at a later date due to the church chasing them up. They had to pay to be married by a clergyman and it was a substantial amount of money, so we can understand why many just lived together as man and wife. I could only find one record, typical when we search on the spur of the moment! The cost in 1793 was 1/2d. - one shilling two pence. Sheila. Alastair Macdonald wrote: > Hello Sheila, > > Many thanks for the explanation. Yes, I would like further information on such irregular marriages. Was the practice widespread, do you know? This could account for the many instances I have found, including my own g. grandfather, where there are lawful children born but where I have been unable to find a Marriage in the OPR. > Regards, Alastair > > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MORAY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Just to point out that not all irregular marriages were due to monetary considerations. Sometimes there was a gap in parish ministers, sometimes there was a dispute regarding the direction the Church of Scotland was taking at the time, and, sometimes the proclamation elicted an objection. I have a couple in my tree who had three children before they were married in church. The groom's father kept objecting every time the banns were proclaimed. He felt that the woman was still married, even though her husband had left for "America" years before and no one had ever heard from him again. As soon as the father died, the couple got married in church. -- Jo-Ann Croft

Many people belonged to other Christian groups other than the main churches Anglican, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic. These Dissenters, Non-Conformists, Quakers, Dunkers, Anabaptists, Mennonites, Amish, Puritans, Brethren etc often held views that every man should tell the truth at all times and that God Knows All. So therefore such things as taking oaths, signing legal documents and perfoming fancy ceremonies like church weddings was unneccessary. They were were often very outspoken of their hatred towards the mainsteam churches and would never even enter one. So many of these people although they attended "Church" faithfully didn't go to those who recorded marriages etc. Civil or simple private home marriages were the only alternative for these people. Mixed marriages (Catholic-Protestant-Jewish-etc) or divorced couples were of course shunned by the Church and had little choice but to go for a civil /common-law marriage In the North American colonies it was often very difficult to get Any clergyman to vist your village for months on end so most people simply held public civil marriages where the Banns were read in public and the townsfolk simply acknowledged the couple as being "married" from that point on. In the military where a soldier's widow as given only a day or two to remarry the new couple would jump over a broom or pass under crossed swords to celebrate their marriage vows. The mainstream churches however were always very upset that these people could get married without paying and hounded and fined the people all the time. So don't think your ancestors were "Living in Sin" or were "Ungodly" they simply may have held very strong views that just didn't fit in with the majority. Nelson Denton No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2684 - Release Date: 02/12/10 14:35:00

> Many people belonged to other Christian groups other than the > main churches > Anglican, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic. > > These Dissenters, Non-Conformists, Quakers, Dunkers, > Anabaptists, > Mennonites, Amish, Puritans, Brethren etc often held views > that every man > should tell the truth at all times and that God Knows All. So > therefore such > things as taking oaths, signing legal documents and perfoming > fancy > ceremonies like church weddings was unneccessary. They were > were often very > outspoken of their hatred towards the mainsteam churches and > would never > even enter one. So many of these people although they attended > "Church" > faithfully didn't go to those who recorded marriages etc. > Civil or simple > private home marriages were the only alternative for these > people. Mixed > marriages (Catholic-Protestant-Jewish-etc) or divorced couples > were of > course shunned by the Church and had little choice but to go > for a civil > /common-law marriage > > In the North American colonies it was often very difficult to > get Any > clergyman to vist your village for months on end so most > people simply held > public civil marriages where the Banns were read in public and > the townsfolk > simply acknowledged the couple as being "married" from that > point on. In the > military where a soldier's widow as given only a day or two to > remarry the > new couple would jump over a broom or pass under crossed > swords to > celebrate their marriage vows. > > The mainstream churches however were always very upset that > these people > could get married without paying and hounded and fined the > people all the > time. > > So don't think your ancestors were "Living in Sin" or were > "Ungodly" they > simply may have held very strong views that just didn't fit in > with the > majority. > > Nelson Denton > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2684 - Release > Date: 02/12/10 14:35:00 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > MORAY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >