Hi all,
I'm pretty sure that in this context it means a minister of the secession church. See this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Secession_Church
Cheers,
Sarah
Proclaimation of Marriage for 1835, Paisley High Church Pais
Moderator: Global Moderators
-
LesleyB
- Posts: 8184
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:18 am
- Location: Scotland
The birth is now in the gallery, but is still not easy to read due to the small size. Karenn - if you have the original image which you downloaded from Scotlands People it would be better to upload that.
http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1787
And the marriage
http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1786
http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1787
And the marriage
http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1786
-
LesleyB
- Posts: 8184
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:18 am
- Location: Scotland
Note that the marriage above, and another several lines up the page has no date given, so I think Sarah's interpretation may be correct - names written in the book as Banns read or intention to marry intimated to session clerk, date of actual marriage filled in later....and it looks like two of those couples did not marry, or the session clerk forgot to fill it in, but he seems a neatish, organised chap, judging from this page so that seems less likely.
Writing makes it look like the same session clerk is still in office in 1852, and it says something of his organisational skills that he was able to either remember, or look back and find the correct couple.
Unfortunatey he did not see fit to give us an explanation of why it took them so long!
Writing makes it look like the same session clerk is still in office in 1852, and it says something of his organisational skills that he was able to either remember, or look back and find the correct couple.
Unfortunatey he did not see fit to give us an explanation of why it took them so long!
-
Russell
- Posts: 2559
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:59 pm
- Location: Kilbarchan, Renfrewshire
Hi All
My take on this entry is that the Church Officer responsible for recording all events in his own parish church was also required to note events happening in other secession churches within the parish. Since Paisley had a good number of differing religious branches he probably was given rough notes from the Minister or Church Officer of the other churches and had to make sense of them.
The couple were probably members of his church when they had their Banns called but, along with many other Paisley dissenters, joined one of the other sects.
He -the Church Officer - may have been asked to record the actual date of their marriage as this would legitimise any children born before the actual marriage took place. The Banns entry would have been considered evidence of their intention to marry. Since Paisley was going through a time of great economic/occupational disruption the cost of a marriage entry might have been beyond their financial means at the time.
Women who worked the power looms were paid pennies a day at the time.
The Clerk who made the entries was a stickler for accuracy and had good handwriting as well.
The forename of the secession minister was Archibald (Archd)
Paisley's religious history in the 1800's would fill several books.
That's my take on the situation.
Russell
My take on this entry is that the Church Officer responsible for recording all events in his own parish church was also required to note events happening in other secession churches within the parish. Since Paisley had a good number of differing religious branches he probably was given rough notes from the Minister or Church Officer of the other churches and had to make sense of them.
The couple were probably members of his church when they had their Banns called but, along with many other Paisley dissenters, joined one of the other sects.
He -the Church Officer - may have been asked to record the actual date of their marriage as this would legitimise any children born before the actual marriage took place. The Banns entry would have been considered evidence of their intention to marry. Since Paisley was going through a time of great economic/occupational disruption the cost of a marriage entry might have been beyond their financial means at the time.
Women who worked the power looms were paid pennies a day at the time.
The Clerk who made the entries was a stickler for accuracy and had good handwriting as well.
The forename of the secession minister was Archibald (Archd)
Paisley's religious history in the 1800's would fill several books.
That's my take on the situation.
Russell
Working on: Oman, Brock, Miller/Millar, in Caithness.
Roan/Rowan, Hastings, Sharp, Lapraik in Ayr & Kirkcudbrightshire.
Johnston, Reside, Lyle all over the place !
McGilvray(spelt 26 different ways)
Watson, Morton, Anderson, Tawse, in Kilrenny
Roan/Rowan, Hastings, Sharp, Lapraik in Ayr & Kirkcudbrightshire.
Johnston, Reside, Lyle all over the place !
McGilvray(spelt 26 different ways)
Watson, Morton, Anderson, Tawse, in Kilrenny
-
Currie
- Posts: 3924
- Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:20 am
- Location: Australia
According to his Glasgow Herald obit, when he died on 31 October 1857 at Bridge of Allan, the Rev. Dr. Baird was of the St James’ Street United Presbyterian Church Paisley and had been since 1825. The United Presbyterian Church of Scotland was formed in 1847 by the union of the United Secession Church and the Relief Church. Dr. Baird was previously United Secession Church. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=2RE ... 22baird%22
In 1852, or maybe later, when the additional entry was supposedly made there was no United Secession Church in Paisley. Yet the clerk described the minister as Dr. Archd Baird Secession Paisley. Maybe he was out of touch or just generalising or maybe he wrote the current year rather than the actual marriage year.
The later addition to the Banns proclamation is a bit like an IGI submission. You don’t know who put it there, where they got the information from and whether they made a mistake while writing it down. On the IGI this ‘1852’ marriage appears only as a submission whereas the others on the page appear to be there as extracts.
Presumably the Paisley High Church was Church of Scotland and the actual marriage record would more likely be in an Old Parish Register for the United Secession Church if pre 1847 or the United Presbyterian Church if they exist and wherever they are.
Just some thoughts,
Alan
In 1852, or maybe later, when the additional entry was supposedly made there was no United Secession Church in Paisley. Yet the clerk described the minister as Dr. Archd Baird Secession Paisley. Maybe he was out of touch or just generalising or maybe he wrote the current year rather than the actual marriage year.
The later addition to the Banns proclamation is a bit like an IGI submission. You don’t know who put it there, where they got the information from and whether they made a mistake while writing it down. On the IGI this ‘1852’ marriage appears only as a submission whereas the others on the page appear to be there as extracts.
Presumably the Paisley High Church was Church of Scotland and the actual marriage record would more likely be in an Old Parish Register for the United Secession Church if pre 1847 or the United Presbyterian Church if they exist and wherever they are.
Just some thoughts,
Alan
-
Karenn
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:34 am
- Location: Canberra, Australia
Birth of Elizabeth Hill
Hi All,
I'm glad I've generated some interest for my first post! Thank you for all your suggestions.
I've now uploaded, yet again, the birth record of Elizabeth dated prior to their marriage. This is as big as it gets!
Karenn
http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1789
<image URL added, LesleyB>
I'm glad I've generated some interest for my first post! Thank you for all your suggestions.
I've now uploaded, yet again, the birth record of Elizabeth dated prior to their marriage. This is as big as it gets!Karenn
http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1789
<image URL added, LesleyB>
Karenn from down under