C of S Banns -married in an RC church !

[frances]

I have come across a marriage certificate for a couple who were married after Publication of Banns according to the Forms of the Church of Scotland , but were married by a RC priest in a RC church

Is this unusual ?

Has anyone else ever seen this before ?

Frances

[Grendlsmother]

As I understand it all marriages had to be registered with C of S, regardless of where they took place - I may be wrong and doubtless someone will put me right.
However, I posted a similar query under the "RC births now on line" thread, but I think in the excitement of posters finding all the long lost births it was bypassed.
The query was this - did the couple have to go through two ceremonies, ie "official" C of S and then an RC one or vice versa. My own ggxgrandparents marriage was registered in their home parish register, which was not an RC church. However, as their first child was born literally a few weeks after, I now wonder if they had previously gone through an RC ceremony. I have several instances of these very premature births (not that it particularly worries me), but I wondered if a double ceremony might be the reason for some of them.

[maddymoss]

Apparently, at one time all banns of marriage had to be called in the Established Church i.e. Church of Scotland, regardless of the denomination of the couple. Not all couples complied, either because of the cost or perhaps they objected. Two sets of my g.g.grandparents, who were Catholic, did register their banns in the Church of Scotland - one in 1846, the other in 1853. It cost the 1846 couple 3/6 (17½p).

[frances]

This particular marriage that I came across took place in 1938. Thought things may have been a bit more enlightened by then.

I also have other marriage certificate from about the same time and the marriage banns were read in the RC Church , no mention of the C of S.

Frances