marriage cert not related

[kenspeckle]

Hi I was just thinking I have a marriage cert 1861 Edinburgh that it says the groom is SINGLE and NOT RELATED the people on the other marriage on the page I got from Scotlands People has the groom as a batchelor and does not say not related I am wondering if on my family person its because maybe he is a sort of relation ?? they are both at the same address as she took in lodgers and this was also her second marriage the minister was Francis Grant DD of St Marys Edinburgh just a street away and the witnesses 2 of his servants
groom is John M Wilson bride is Euphemia Douglas nee McKinlay

all the other marriage certs I have say of the groom batchelor I cant follow up on him as they went to Australia and no more info on his death cert other than born Brooklyn US I am wondering if maybe he was married before or perhaps some sort of relation does anyone know if this would be the reason for the terminology used ?
regards lesley in Tasmania

[AndrewP]

Hi Lesley,

I have only seen this teminology used before where the couple have the same surname before their marriage, and it needs to be made clear that they are legal to be married (for example, that they are not brother and sister ).

It may be that the minister or registrar wanted to emphasise that having seen that the couple shared the same address prior to marriage that he had questioned if they were related, and had found that they were unrelated, so entered the remark not related on the certificate to make it clear.

All the best,

AndrewP

[emanday]

I've got an MC where the registrar has specifically written "1st cousins" because the couple's fathers were brothers!

A fairly weel-off family, I imagine, in this case, they wed as much for economic purposes as love!