Help with deciphering - life begins at 70.....

[grannysrock]

Hi all
Looking at a record I've had a wee whilie - I just noticed that the Married after ... appears to say something different to the usual - but I'm not sure what :

marriage after ? solemnised between us according to the ? ? the Church of scotland
link: http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... p?pos=-144

(its the first marriage - between John Adam and (Catherine) Daillie )

The couple had alrady had a son - whose birth registration has a note to the left that he was subsequently "legitimated" by this marriage .

And John has lopped a full 5 years of his age here - a 70-year-old and a 21 year old ...

Any ideas?
Sally

[DavidWW]

"marriage after banns was solemnised between us according to the rites [except I don't think that it is after further perusal!!] ? of the Church of Scotland"

But I just cannot get those missing word .................. could it be something of ceremonies ??..............

Davie

PS The annoying thing is that the one below is straighforward..............

[grannysrock]

Davie

I think you have got the lot ... quite brilliant. =D>


"marriage after banns was solemnised between us according to the rites & ceremonies of the Church of Scotland"


Easy when you know how ( ask Davie )

Now why say that as opposed to the usual stuff ?????


Thankyou ever so much

Sally

[JayPee]

I read this as
"marriage after banns was solemnised between us according to the rites / ceremonies of the Church of Scotland"

The wording, as I've seen it on other certs, is normally spelled out fully as "rites and ceremonies". I see a character preceding "ceremonies" but I'm not sure if this is a slash ("/") or another character indicating "and" -- a plus-sign ("+") perhaps??

- JayPee

[JayPee]

Now why say that as opposed to the usual stuff ?????

"was solemnised between us" didn't strike me as odd, because I've seen this before, on several "certified copy of an entry of marriage" documents, for marriages in Sunderland, Co. Durham. It is different from docs from Scotland, though.

- JayPee

[nelmit]

Well done Davie but will somebody tell me where the bride was or am I missing something (apart from her signature. )

Annette M

[DavidWW]

Well done Davie but will somebody tell me where the bride was or am I missing something (apart from her signature. )

Annette M

May 1855 so maybe a first year effect in terms of the process. What's also noticeable is that 3 of the sets of parents are shown in a form which would later mean that they weren't married......... could possibly have been the case................

In terms of the wording I'd suspect again a first year effect in terms of no standard guidance yet issued by the church to ministers or the Registrar General to registrars as to standard wordings to be used in the first column...........

Davie

[grannysrock]

Annette - I have the bride's name from other records - but yes it is a bit odd. There seems to be an X , without the usual notes about marks and witnesses.
Davie - I can't speak for Catherine's parents, but John himself was definitely legitimate - his parents Peter and Elizabeth Smith married 1784 , Dundee .

So does all in all look like the registrar hadnae quite goat the hang o hings.

JayPee - you would be right , it looks like a / not an & when I look at it again. I will pay more attention to the married how notes in future. Until now the only variables I have noticed were Free, United and Established.

Thanks to all
Sally

[DavidWW]

Annette - I have the bride's name from other records - but yes it is a bit odd. There seems to be an X , without the usual notes about marks and witnesses.

Agreed an "X" for John, but nothing that I can see for the bride.........

Davie - I can't speak for Catherine's parents, but John himself was definitely legitimate - his parents Peter and Elizabeth Smith married 1784 , Dundee .

So why the format Peter ADAMS Elizabeth SMITH instead of the correct Peter ADAMS Elizabeth ADAMS MS SMITH ??!! ..........

So does all in all look like the registrar hadnae quite goat the hang o hings.

Looks like that to me, but proving it is something entirely different !! <g>

JayPee - you would be right , it looks like a / not an & when I look at it again. I will pay more attention to the married how notes in future. Until now the only variables I have noticed were Free, United and Established.

I remain to be persuaded and convinced !! <g>

Davie !!

[grannysrock]

Davie
John Adam was not illiterate and could still sign his name on a subsequent birth, so my take was that the X represented Catherine' signature. I know from another record that she used X. Looking at it now I see the X isn't in the right place to be her mark - but like I say , John could write - For me it just seems the clerk had a bad day.

Or ???? Could people be pronounced married without turning up ? Was John called to the Kirk and told he was a very naughty old man and pronounced married ? I'm prepared to believe anything.


I've no idea why none of the maiden names are not preceded by the married names , Like I say, I can't prove anything about Catherine's parents as I have no access to Irish records, but I can't see that John being the lawful son of Peter Adam and Elizabeth Smith is in doubt ?

Were the original church records ever kept by the way?


Maybe I think I'll just burn this record ...


Sally