Pretended to be Married?.....

[dmh68]

I have been looking on Scotlandspeople for a marriage certificate for Robert Marshall Smith and Joan McKechnie who, according to their son's birth certificate in 1901, married in Tradeston, Glasgow in September 1899. I have also done a general search before and after that date in case the date was wrong. I can't find any record of a marriage. Surely if it happened it would be on Scotlandspeople???

Its more likely that they pretended to marry rather than Scotlandspeople missing this record isn't it???

Thanks,

dmh68

[pinkshoes]

Hi dmh - I can only see one Robert Smith marrying a M*echnie between 1855 and 1900. The marriage was in 1896 in Glasgow, Govan between a Robert Smith and a Josep McKechnie. I know there's a lot wrong with it but ... just maybe?? I've no idea if Govan is near Tradeston?


Best wishes
Pinkshoes

[dmh68]

Thanks, Pinkshoes. The 1896 marriage is not them, but thanks anyway for replying. This whole side of the family seem very elusive when it comes to statutory documents!

[eilthireach]

>>Its more likely that they pretended to marry rather than Scotlandspeople missing this record isn't it???<<

No, actually ... It could have been an irregular marriage, or, as happened with cousins of mine as recently as 1972, they married but the paperwork was not completed ... the marriage schedule appears not to have been returned to the registrar - or, in other words, someone didn't follow through - and so there is no official record of the marriage ...

[LesleyB]

Hi dmh68
Did they have any other children whose birth gives a marriage date and place?

Hi eilthireach

No, actually ... It could have been an irregular marriage

As far as I'm aware, even if it was a marriage which was not performed by a minister, e.g if it was a civil ceremony, if it occurred after Statutory Registration in 1855, all marriages had to be registered.

Best wishes
Lesley

[sporran]

Hello dmh68,


there is a death in Tradeston during 1947 for 72-year old Joan Smith, formerly McKechnie (single). Informant was her daughter Agnes Smith, and the deceased's parents were Angus McKechnie and Ann, ms McLellan. Do the names mean anything?


Regards,

John

[eilthireach]

>>Hi eilthireach
>>Quote:
>No, actually ... It could have been an irregular marriage

>>As far as I'm aware, even if it was a marriage which was not >>performed by a minister, e.g if it was a civil ceremony, if it occurred >>after Statutory Registration in 1855, all marriages had to be registered

Hi, LesleyB

Yes, according to the law all marriages had (/have) to be registered, but that does not mean that all marriages -were or are- registered. As I explained in my post, with an irregular marriage or marriage by mutual consent, marriage by declaration in front of witnesses, there would not necessarily be any paperwork, or any notification of the marriage to the registrar. It happened!
And, as I showed in the example I gave, the system can break down even in modern times. Even if you find a date and place of the marriage given when a child of that marriage is registered, it does not always mean that there will be a corresponding official record of the marriage. The parents know that they got married on that day, and the date they give the registrar for the date of their marriage (even if it is only vaguely remembered) when registering the birth of their child is a perfectly correct and honest statement in the circumstances, even though there is no official record.
As the GRO(S) website explains "Irregular marriages were entered into by persons who took advantage of the principle in Scots Law that marriage was constituted by mutual consent. The form of contract generally adopted was a simple written declaration of acceptance of each other as husband and wife." And, depending on the part of the country you are talking about, and the people involved, there would not necessarily even have been a written declaration!
There is no need to go further into the ins and outs of the law. What matters is what happened and what you find as you research the historical records and are at the same time aware of the social and cultural background.

[LesleyB]

Hi eilthireach
I had thought that, however, many of the irregular marriages which occurred around the time in question were in fact registered, e.g. according to National Index of Parish Registers XII - Sources for Scottish Genealogy and Family History - D.J. Steel

Marriages by consent were fairly common right until their abolition in 1939. Edinburgh official returns for 1930 showed 1,023 "irregular marriages", the parties to which had applied at the Sherriff's court for registration.....
However, the number had begun to decline at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th.

- but of couse, as you mention, I'm sure there are always going to be some who slip through the net, perhaps due to no fault of their own. Maybe there is still some hope for dmh68 to locate a marriage due to some mis-transcription? But maybe not...

I'd still be interested to hear of any other births for this couple and any associated given marriage date. What was Robert's occupation in 1901?

Best wishes
Lesley

[eilthireach]

Hi eilthireach
I had thought that, however, many of the irregular marriages which occurred around the time in question were in fact registered, e.g. according to National Index of Parish Registers XII - Sources for Scottish Genealogy and Family History - D.J. Steel

Marriages by consent were fairly common right until their abolition in 1939. Edinburgh official returns for 1930 showed 1,023 "irregular marriages", the parties to which had applied at the Sherriff's court for registration.....
However, the number had begun to decline at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th.

[snipped]

Hi, LesleyB,

I don't want to get into a detailed discussion or debate about this ... but what is being said in what you have quoted there doesn't affect my point, and in any case all you can deduce from what Steel is saying there is that there were 1023 applications to to the Sheriff Court for official registration of what had been irregular marriages. He has not said what time period that covers (in 1930 alone? up to 1930? from what starting date?) or what part of the country it covered (in Edinburgh alone? from throughout Scotland?). So, yes, undoubtedly it can be said that a -number- of them were eventually recorded, but that is all you can say. Given their very nature, that they were marriages which took place outside the normal channels - they did not take place in a church and would not appear in parish records, and were not marriages that took place in accordance with the normal civil registration process - there is no way of knowing just how many such marriages there were over the years and therefore what proportion of them were eventually "validated" (wrong word, but you get my drift) by being registered via an application to the Sheriff Court. Most people, I suspect, and certainly those from the areas of Scotland in which I am normally researching, would see no need whatsoever to take this step. They were married, and that was that. They were recognised within their community as married and that is all that would have mattered to them.

[AnneM]

Eilthireach is correct. The marriage was perfectly valid whether or not the couple applied to the Sheriff for a warrant to register it. All that was required was the mutual consent to be from that moment on married people. It is therefore likely that a sizeable number of people just did not see the need to go through any further formalities.

In addition people could be married by cohabitiation by habit and repute and these marriages would not be registered.

At some point David WW posted an article on irregular marriages which was quite extensive. I can't remember exactly which forum it was on now but will try to find it.

In addition there are stories on the My Scotland forum by Moonwatcher and me which focus on the practicalities of irregular marriages.

Anne