The parties having drawn back

[Grendlsmother]

Found this entry in the OPRs - a red herring as far as my research goes, but interesting all the same.

XXXX and XXX both of this parish have given their names in order for proclamation of marriage Jny 24th 1795 years. This marriage was not consummated the parties having drawn back.
Then a note in the margin saying “the parties have drawn back”

Two days later they make a second attempt:
XXXX and XXX both of this parish have again given their names in order for proclamation of marriage Jny 26th 1795 years. Marriage (being?) Feby 4th 1795 years

Is there a note of irritation in the word “again”?

Now I thought this entry was unusual, but two entries down on the same page, there is another - not consummated the parties having drawn back. (but no second entry - unless it’s over the page).

It would appear that “not consummated” meant that the marriage did not take place (rather than the way we would understand the expression today) otherwise there would be no need to come back and register again. (Unless someone had snitched on them!)

They certainly are interesting entries - did the first couple have a huge row and then make up. The fact that it is only two days between their two entries would indicate that they actually went back and cancelled the first arrangement. Was it financial?

Any thoughts?

(ps. Not sure that it actually says “years” after the dates, although it certainly looks like it - its definitely not “anno dom” and it appears after every date on the page.

[Currie]

Hello Grendlsmother,

Was it from the Outer Hebrides by any chance?

“Gaelic Words and Expressions from South Uist and Eriskay” Allan McDonald, 1958.

Page 128.
http://www.google.com.au/webhp?complete ... 367ab4e63e

FOI[GH]NEACHAS, I 436: It was once a practice in S. Uist if a couple had been espoused and one of the parties drew back that the resiling party paid a fine of five pounds to the other. This was called the foineachas. See Boighneachas. [Dinneen paidhneachas.]

Page 45.
http://www.google.com.au/webhp?complete ... 367ab4e63e
&
http://www.google.com.au/webhp?complete ... 367ab4e63e

BOIGHNEACHAS, 230, (like oi in sgoinn [oi]). The boighneachas was the agreement as to ‘tocher’ made between the father of the bride-to-be and the representative of the bridegroom. It is practically extinct in Uist now. The hands were joined at the close of the contract. Many an old churl refused his daughter to her suitor on the plea that he sought not his daughter's hand but his own gear.
VI 30: There was a man going to marry, and he was anxious that his bride should have a colt belonging to her mother as part of the dowry. It was not easy to persuade the old lady to part with the colt, and the matrimonial negotiations fell thro', and the swain candidly acknowledged that he was more anxious to get the colt with the wife, than the wife herself. “A dh’innse na firinne, ‘s i’n loth bu docha leam na i fhein.” See Foighneachas.

I can’t see the full page images so am not certain of the exact layout, but that’s how the OCR’d text appears to run.

If it wasn’t the Outer Hebrides then I guess it could still be a dowry disagreement that is holding up proceedings.

Hope that’s useful,
Alan

[Grendlsmother]

It was Inveraray And Glenaray, Argyll.

Hadn't thought about a dowry dispute so it could be that, or a reluctance to pay the £5 fine that made them come back!

I note from IGI that there was a child 9 months later - so obviously no problem the second time around!

Thanks for the input on this.

GM