Confusion and Duplication!

innjess · Post by **innjess** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:36 am

Checking back on the Marriage records of of my GGGGGrandfather (I think that's right!), I find that there are two James Hutchisons (one spelled without the "t"), each married to Elizabeth Crawford. One marriage took place in Eastwood (not certain where this is) and the other in Alloa, Clackmannan. The respective O.P.R. Marriage records are 562/0020 0310 for Eastwood, and 465/0040 0439 for Alloa. Can anybody shed some light on what looks an unlikely coincidence?

innjess

Post by **Anne H** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:53 am

Hi innjess,
They are most likely marriage banns. One in the bride's parish and the other in the grooms parish. Banns were normally called three times before marriage.

Regards,
Anne H

innjess · Post by **innjess** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:58 am

Thanks, Anne,
Makes sense, except that the Alloa one is dated 14/01/1771, and the Eastwood one is dated 10/01/1772!
Whoa! Hold everything! From Scotland's People I now have two Records under the same OPR Marriages Record (465/0040 0439 and 0302 Alloa, Clackmannan), with two different dates. The first is dated 14/01/1771 and the second is dated 19/06/1772. And the one from Eastwood is dated 10/1/1772!

innjess

innjess · Post by **innjess** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:12 am

Hello, Anne!
Sorry - my error in the previous post. The OPR dated 19/06/1772 is actually for the birth of their son, John. Is it probable (?) then, that the marriage was in 1771 rather than 1772, although the coincidence of the identical names still exists. Maybe there is a transcription error in the OPR record of the 1772 year, caused by it being so soon after the start of a new year? The writing and date are pretty unclear.
Too much scotch at Hogmanay, maybe!
innjess

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:14 am

Hi injess
Not sure if you have looked at the actual wording of the original records - sometimes the clues lie in there as some of the items which are indexed as "marriages" in the OPRs are not marriages as such, but notifications of an intention to marry. Also the dates on the index and on the original can differ due to mistranscription errors and the like.

Maybe there is a transcription error in the OPR record of the 1772 year, caused by it being so soon after the start of a new year?

I've certainly seen an example of that; top of the page headed with one date, but the actual marriage happening in the following year, but whoever transcribed the page put them all under the earlier year! I've also seen a similar thing happening with births, where one out of sequence has been fitted in on the OPR page, but the transcriber has not noticed that the date is different.

Best wishes
Lesley

Post by **joette** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:09 pm

Yes my GGGGreat-Grandparents were much maligned by me.I just looked at the dates for the births of their children & their marriage date-the eldest child's birth was several months before the marriage date.

When the OPR's went on-line I decided to look at the original transcription-thinking there may have been a rebuke from the Minister with mayube a juicy tidbit or two.
I was surprised to find that their eldest my GGGreat-Grandfather was the "lawful child" & that as the marriage was suppossed to have taken place the following year then the marriage entry was incorrect.
I was disappointed.Thought there may have been some more info to find.

Post by **Anne H** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:27 pm

Hi innjess,

I'd be inclined to go along with Leslie's advice and have a look at the actual OPR images for further clues. I have a few same named couples with same named children as 'possibles' in my files all getting married around the same time...it's difficult to tell at times who belongs to whom

. Hopefully the original images will give you some clues.

Regards,
Anne H

innjess · Post by **innjess** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:18 am

Thanks everybody, for all your help.
However, I'm still in a quandary, as after viewing both OPR images, there is no further clue as to why the discrepancy! The Alloa one states "... both in the parish gave up their names", and the Eastwood one states "... both in this parrish (sic) gave up their names for proclamation (abbreviated) in order to marriage".
I guess the original marriage may not have taken place, and the Eastwood one was a "repeat" ... but then there is the birth of John Hutchison on 19/06/1772 - only five and a half months later! Very modern behaviour!!
innjess

Post by **Anne H** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:53 am

injess wrote:

... but then there is the birth of John Hutchison on 19/06/1772 - only five and a half months later! Very modern behaviour!!

Not so modern, I'm afraid

I'd hazard a guess and say that most of us doing family history research have found a good many of our ancestors children being born well before the marriage.

Regards,
Anne H

StewL · Post by **StewL** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:19 am

Anne H wrote:injess wrote:
... but then there is the birth of John Hutchison on 19/06/1772 - only five and a half months later! Very modern behaviour!!
Not so modern, I'm afraid I'd hazard a guess and say that most of us doing family history research have found a good many of our ancestors children being born well before the marriage.

Regards,
Anne H

Oh yes, found many a lang deid yin who tried before they bought