Musselburgh Place Leith (Edinburgh)

Post by **AndrewP** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:40 pm

Hi Lucie,

I looked at a number of old maps on the NLS website and found no sign of Musselburgh Place. I wonder if it was a part of Leith Walk - like Haddington Place.

All the best,

AndrewP

rosieno1 · Post by **rosieno1** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:15 pm

Sorry for going over this point again - but i understand that prior to the introduction of civil registration the only 'official' (regular??) marriages were those contracted under the auspices of the established church, and recorded
one assumes in the opr.

Secondarily, an irregular marriage was one recognised by the Kirk, though not carried out by a Church of Scotland minister - & I assume this only applied to members of the COS.

However what was the legal position of marriages contracted by members of of all the other churches, from RC to Episcopailans, to Free church and many other sects. Were they civilly legal? Were they irregular, (but surely not recognised by the Kirk), or did they fall into some third category??

nelmit · Post by **nelmit** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:18 pm

AndrewP wrote:Hi Lucie,

I looked at a number of old maps on the NLS website and found no sign of Musselburgh Place. I wonder if it was a part of Leith Walk - like Haddington Place.

All the best,

AndrewP

I wondered about that too Andrew.

These 'Places' and 'Terraces' can be seen detailed at this one from NLSbut I'm still trying to find Musselburgh Place!

Regards,
Annette

carlineric · Post by **carlineric** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 9:57 am

You could try the Edinburgh Post Office Directory. I have had trouble in this area with finding addresses.

Eric

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:45 am

Hello rosieno1,

This book, Annual Register, 1824, has an interesting article on pages 309-311, taken from the Caledonian Mercury of 25 September, 1815, about an indictment brought against a Roman Catholic priest at the Circuit Court, Inverness. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=zoR ... 22&f=false

He was accused of being in breach of a 1661 Act of the Scottish Parliament against clandestine and unlawful marriages which provided that “whatsoever person or persons shall hereafter marry, or procure themselves to be married in a clandestine and inorderly way, or by Jesuits, Priests, or any other not authorised by this Kirk, shall suffer the penalties” etc. The main charges were the celebration of marriage by a person not entitled to do so and the celebration of marriage without due proclamation of banns.

The summing up by the Judge appeared to be; firstly, that the Statute was in full force; secondly, that a marriage celebrated by a Popish priest, with or without the proclamation of banns, between what parties soever, even when both are Catholics, was irregular and inorderly and that the celebrator was liable to the penalties of the statute; and thirdly; that the Panel had celebrated an irregular and inorderly marriage.

The Jury found that the case was not proven.

In this 1824 parliamentary debate Mr. J. P. Grant who had acted for the defence in the 1815 prosecution had this to say. “It had been stated, that the marriage of Catholics by a Catholic priest in Scotland was valid. True, it was so, because marriage, by the law of the country, was looked upon as a civil contract; but, by an act of the Scotch parliament, still in force, a Catholic priest was subjected to heavy penalties for performing the marriage ceremony between two Catholics, though the marriage would still be valid. It had happened to him to have to defend a Catholic priest, in a prosecution instituted against him, for an infraction of this law. His client was fortunately acquitted, and he believed that since then further prosecutions under that statute were abandoned”. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1Qk ... 22&f=false

Hope that’s useful,
Alan

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:50 am

Hi Rosie

Sorry for going over this point again - but i understand that prior to the introduction of civil registration the only 'official' (regular??) marriages were those contracted under the auspices of the established church, and recorded
one assumes in the opr.

Before 1855 and Statutory Registration, as far as the Established CoS was concerned any marriage conducted outwith the kirk was an irregular marriage. To be "regular" the banns had to be read in the parish churches of both the bride and groom, followed by marriage by the minister with at least two witnesses (not necessarily in a church). After 1834, a regular marriage could be performed by ministers other than CoS providing banns were read in the local parish church.

Secondarily, an irregular marriage was one recognised by the Kirk, though not carried out by a Church of Scotland minister - & I assume this only applied to members of the COS.

Irregular marriages (the several types) were NOT recognised by the Kirk - that was the problem with them and thus all the discussion about same in the Kirk Session minutes, the couples brought before the session and the fines made. If you were not a member of the CoS then it did not matter to them who/where/when you were married as you were not their "problem"! If a couple were CoS and irregularly married, they may not have thier child christened in the Kirk until they admitted their wrongdoing, and the marriage was subsequently regularised.

However what was the legal position of marriages contracted by members of of all the other churches, from RC to Episcopailans, to Free church and many other sects. Were they civilly legal? Were they irregular, (but surely not recognised by the Kirk), or did they fall into some third category??

Marriages conducted by other churches (other than the Established CoS) would no doubt be considered irregular by the CoS but they were perfectly legal.

There is more info in the link given earlier
http://talkingscot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11070

Best wishes
Lesley

mulberry · Post by **mulberry** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:42 pm

I have in my hand the marriage certificate of my parents . It looks perfectly normal except it is a irregular marriage. Column 1 shows they were married by declaration in presence of two named persons at 21 Hope Street Glasgow on 9th December 1916. Column 6 if regular marriage,signature of officiating minister and witnesses if irregular date of conviction, Decree of Declaration or Sherriff's warrant. In this column it says "Warrant of Sherriff Substitue of Lanarkshire dated December 9th 1916" column 7 is for when and where registered and this shows the date as December 12th 1916 at Glasgow and the signature of the registrar. Column 2 showed that my father was a lance corporal in the 3rd Battalion the Scottish Rifles and was aged 20. His address was his parents address.My mother was aged 18 and her address was not her family address. I said not family but both her parents were deceased and her siblings were still living at what had been the family home. I have no idea why my parents went through this form of marriage because all my mothers sisters were married through the Church,not necessary the same church. As far as I am aware having an irregular marriage did not cause them any problems in later life and they had a long 54 year marriage until my mothers death in 1970. Just thought my experience may throw another little slant on the question of irregular marriages.
rachel

Post by **AndrewP** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:21 pm

Hi Rachel,

As the irregular marriage was a fully legal union, there was no reason for it to cause any problem for the couple as far as the status of the marriage was concerned. The church may not have given it the same recognition.

The Marriage (Scotland) Act 1939 gave rise to the marriage in the Registrar's office from July 1940. That gave couples an alternative to the marriage by a clergyman or the need to make a declaration and have it approved through the court. On saying that, one sort of irregular marriage (by cohabitation with habit and repute) is still a legal union in Scotland to this day.

All the best,

AndrewP

mulberry · Post by **mulberry** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:15 am

Thanks for that Andrew. Apparently it caused no problems with the Church either as far as future births marriages and deaths were concerned.
rachel

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:47 pm

Apparently it caused no problems with the Church either as far as future births marriages and deaths were concerned.

Any problems with the church and irregular marriages were generally from an earlier age when the church exerted a bit more control...or thought it should!

Best wishes
Lesley