Irregular Marriage Venue

garibaldired · Post by **garibaldired** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:55 pm

Hello Lesley,

What a good idea.
Now why didn't I think of that..........

Best wishes,
Meg

Post by **AnneM** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:20 pm

Hi Meg

This does not sound like any form of court process I'm aware of. If the parties were not married and the child was not yet born I can't see what duty of support the man owed the woman. I have a faint memory that she could claim lying-in expenses but though I may be off beam with this one he would have no liability to support his unborn child's mother, particularly as it could not be proved to be his till it was born. She could of course sue for support for the child once it was born. I must check that up.

The only way she could get a court order stating that they were married would be to prove that the marriage took place in one of the 'irregular' manners allowed at that time i.e by declaration of present consent, by living together and being known as husband and wife or by sexual intercourse on the faith of a promise of marriage. What may have happened is that they exchanged consents, he subsequently changed his mind and repudiated her and she had to go to court to get the marriage proved.

Have you checked on exactly what the marriage certificate says. A sheriff in those days could not have decided that the parties were already married as actions relating to status were reserved to the Court of Session, so if the certificate says "By warrant of the Sheriff Substitute of whereever" it's a straight irregular marriage rather than a declarator.

Anne

garibaldired · Post by **garibaldired** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:15 pm

Hello Anne,

Thank you very much for that! I'm a bit clearer now - I think!!
Looking at the certificate it does say "Warrant of Sheriff Substitute ...etc" so that makes it a straightforward irregular marriage (that sounds rather tautological!) doesn't it?
So perhaps the information I was given indicates a degree of pressure was applied to the bridegroom. There is no way that the bridegroom could not be present? It opens up all sorts of possibilities if only one of the parties has to attend!

Best wishes,

Meg

Post by **AndrewP** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:48 pm

Hi Meg,

The "by warrant" irregular marriage certificates usually contain the original signatures of the two parties. Do you see signatures, or witnessed x-marks, made in two different handwritings, neither of which is the registrar's. That should give you proof, or as near as you will get, that both parties were present.

Normally, on all other marriage certificates, the signatures are transcribed by the registrar from the marriage schedule, hence the whole certificate is in the same handwriting.

All the best,

AndrewP

garibaldired · Post by **garibaldired** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:26 am

Hi Andrew,

The handwriting is the same throughout the certificate.

So where does that leave us?

By the way, Lesley I have looked at NAS but didn't turn up anything.

Meg

garibaldired · Post by **garibaldired** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:18 am

Hi All,

I'm back again with this one.
Having looked more carefully (

) at the address I see it's actually 30 Holyrood Place. When I google it I find 2 other (irregular) marriages took place here in the same decade. Any ideas?

Also if there was a dispute over custody of children (no divorce involved)where would details be found? I couldn't find anything in an online search at NAS.

Best wishes,

Meg