Discussion:
Scottish marriage by warrant of Sheriff Substitute
(too old to reply)
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-14 20:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Here's a quick query for my Scottish friends, following on again from
my recent visit to the GROS in Edinburgh.

I have a marriage in 1933 and, whilst all the others took place
either in a Catholic Church or Church of Scotland, etc, this was some
kind of civil ceremony at an address which I take to have been a
register office or similar.

The marriage was on 4 November 1933 and both parties were widowed, so
had been previously married. The bridegroom was aged 30 and the bride
34. The certificate states that the marriage took place at 320,
London Road, Glasgow "By Declaration in the presence of [two
witnesses named]". The penultimate column states that the marriage
was by "Warrant of Sheriff Substitute of Lanarkshire, dated 4th
November 1933".

The official heading above the column states: "If a Regular Marriage,
signature and designation of Officiating Minister and signatures and
addresses of witnesses; If an Irregular Marriage, Date of Decree of
Declarator, or of sheriff's Warrant". I take it therefore that this
was an "Irregular" marriage.

Since the Scottish system is different, I'd be interested in a little
background as to what precisely a Sheriff Substitute is and was this
the equivalent of an English register office marriage or something
different again? Why is it called "Irregular"? I gather from a spot
of Googling that a Sheriff Substitute is a magistrate of sorts,
rather than a registrar of births, marriages & deaths.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"We are all omnibuses in which our ancestors ride, and every now and then
one of them sticks his head out and embarrasses us."
Oliver Wendell Holmes
S Viemeister
2005-02-14 20:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
The marriage was on 4 November 1933 and both parties were widowed, so
had been previously married. The bridegroom was aged 30 and the bride
34. The certificate states that the marriage took place at 320,
London Road, Glasgow "By Declaration in the presence of [two
witnesses named]". The penultimate column states that the marriage
was by "Warrant of Sheriff Substitute of Lanarkshire, dated 4th
November 1933".
The following is snipped from a discussion elsewhere, of Marriage by
Declaration -

"On 1 July 1940, marriage by declaration _de praesenti_ and by _promittio
per subsequente copula_ ceased to be legal
methods of marrying.
However, even to the present, marriage by habit and repute is still legal,
so as long as she and her husband acted as if they were married, said they
were married, and most people who knew them thought they were married, then
they are/were married. They would however need in any case to go to court
to
get a decree if they need paperwork to prove the marriage since they would
not have a marriage certificate. The amount of evidence the court requires
depends on the length of time involved."
Charles Ellson
2005-02-15 03:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Here's a quick query for my Scottish friends, following on again from
my recent visit to the GROS in Edinburgh.
I have a marriage in 1933 and, whilst all the others took place
either in a Catholic Church or Church of Scotland, etc, this was some
kind of civil ceremony at an address which I take to have been a
register office or similar.
(If a marriage by declaration..)
It would usually be a non-official location, often a residence or the
same place as the reception. In some cases it might be a lawyer's
office as a convenient method of arranging a quiet marriage with
reliable witnesses without forewarning anyone who could interfere.
An old street directory might be the best indicator of the type of
premises involved, the current council tax/rates database jumps from
306 to 415 London Road. The police station on the north side is No.851
so 320 looks like it used to be on the south side somewhere around
Bridgeton station, possibly replaced by some new roads to the west of
the station.
Post by Roy Stockdill
The marriage was on 4 November 1933 and both parties were widowed, so
had been previously married. The bridegroom was aged 30 and the bride
34. The certificate states that the marriage took place at 320,
London Road, Glasgow "By Declaration in the presence of [two
witnesses named]". The penultimate column states that the marriage
was by "Warrant of Sheriff Substitute of Lanarkshire, dated 4th
November 1933".
The official heading above the column states: "If a Regular Marriage,
signature and designation of Officiating Minister and signatures and
addresses of witnesses; If an Irregular Marriage, Date of Decree of
Declarator, or of sheriff's Warrant". I take it therefore that this
was an "Irregular" marriage.
Since the Scottish system is different, I'd be interested in a little
background as to what precisely a Sheriff Substitute is
Nicking the information from the "Report on the Consolidation of certain
Enactments relating to Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries in Scotland" the
pre-1971 job descriptions appear to translate as:-
Sheriff Depute - the senior sheriff in the sheriffdom,
now Sheriff Principal
Sheriff Substitute - the resident local sheriff in each court, now
Sheriff

Not to be confused with the usually ceremonial/administrative English
office of Sheriff.
Post by Roy Stockdill
and was this
the equivalent of an English register office marriage or something
different again?
In practice, although not in procedure. The basic difference is that the
participation of a public official did not occur until after the marriage
had already occurred, as the ceremony was a "do-it-yourself" procedure.
Post by Roy Stockdill
Why is it called "Irregular"? I gather from a spot
of Googling that a Sheriff Substitute is a magistrate of sorts,
rather than a registrar of births, marriages & deaths.
Originally it was "irregular" WRT to the authority of the church (as
in England pre-1753?) but seems to have mutated to encompass forms of
marriage recognised by the legal system but not occurring with the
participation of clergy or a registrar. The Sheriff's part would appear
to be as wielder of the official "rubber stamp" after having received
information (presumably on oath) from the witnesses of the marriage.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-15 12:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
(If a marriage by declaration..)
It would usually be a non-official location, often a residence or the
same place as the reception. In some cases it might be a lawyer's
office as a convenient method of arranging a quiet marriage with
reliable witnesses without forewarning anyone who could interfere.
An old street directory might be the best indicator of the type of
premises involved, the current council tax/rates database jumps from
306 to 415 London Road. The police station on the north side is No.851
so 320 looks like it used to be on the south side somewhere around
Bridgeton station, possibly replaced by some new roads to the west of
the station.>
Many thanks, Charles, for this and the other useful information you
supplied.

I am, however, being increasingly forced to the conclusion that this
type of marriage was somewhat similar to the "clandestine" ones that
Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753 (it took effect in 1754) was
introduced into England to prevent. I am curious to know whether a
marriage by declaration before two witnesses and rubber-stamped by an
official in Scotland in 1933 would have been regarded as legally
valid in England at the time (or subsequently).

My curiosity, I confess, stems principally from the fact that the
lady whose Scottish ancestry I am researching is a current
Westminster MP and government junior minister (English-born) and
these were her grandparents. However, I should add that I have
already found two examples of illegitimate ancestors (though in both
cases the parents subsequently married) and she does not seem unduly
concerned, wise girl.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

One would be in less danger
From the wiles of the stranger
If one's own kin and kith
Were more fun to be with

Ogden Nash
Charles Ellson
2005-02-15 20:56:18 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@smtp2.freeola.net>
***@stockdill.com "Roy Stockdill" writes:

<snip>
Post by Roy Stockdill
I am, however, being increasingly forced to the conclusion that this
type of marriage was somewhat similar to the "clandestine" ones that
Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753 (it took effect in 1754) was
introduced into England to prevent. I am curious to know whether a
marriage by declaration before two witnesses and rubber-stamped by an
official in Scotland in 1933 would have been regarded as legally
valid in England at the time (or subsequently).
ITYF that was already taken care of by existing law which saw a
marriage formed in another country being regarded as equally valid
(any disqualifications IMU depending on relationships rather than
process). A marriage by declaration wasn't "clandestine" in the sense
that it was (and remained ?) concealed but it could be done e.g. without
prior notice to relatives or officialdom but performed with half the
village at the celebration. Leaving Gretna aside, a trawl through
some registers would show them as not being rare. In the case of
non-residents it might have been a convenient method of keeping the
advance knowledge of the marriage limited to those who needed to know
(principally the guests) without blowing the gaff to others who might
interfere with the marriage or spoil the party (such as childen or
siblings who don't want their potential inheritance interfered with).
They were also the means of having a non-religious marriage without
having to involve a visit to the register office so in many cases
would have been as "public" (if not more so) than a regular marriage;
OTOH some appear to have taken place (going by newspaper reports)
because the "correct" (often RC) church celebrant was not available
locally, the marriage often being followed by a blessing later elsewhere.
Post by Roy Stockdill
My curiosity, I confess, stems principally from the fact that the
lady whose Scottish ancestry I am researching is a current
Westminster MP and government junior minister (English-born) and
these were her grandparents. However, I should add that I have
already found two examples of illegitimate ancestors (though in both
cases the parents subsequently married) and she does not seem unduly
concerned, wise girl.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-15 23:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
ITYF that was already taken care of by existing law which saw a
marriage formed in another country being regarded as equally valid
(any disqualifications IMU depending on relationships rather than
process). A marriage by declaration wasn't "clandestine" in the sense
that it was (and remained ?) concealed but it could be done e.g. without
prior notice to relatives or officialdom but performed with half the
village at the celebration. Leaving Gretna aside, a trawl through
some registers would show them as not being rare. In the case of
non-residents it might have been a convenient method of keeping the
advance knowledge of the marriage limited to those who needed to know
(principally the guests) without blowing the gaff to others who might
interfere with the marriage or spoil the party (such as childen or
siblings who don't want their potential inheritance interfered with).
They were also the means of having a non-religious marriage without
having to involve a visit to the register office so in many cases
would have been as "public" (if not more so) than a regular marriage;
OTOH some appear to have taken place (going by newspaper reports)
because the "correct" (often RC) church celebrant was not available
locally, the marriage often being followed by a blessing later elsewhere.>
Once again, many thanks, Charles. I have learned much in the last
couple of days from a number of people about the Scottish laws of
marriage etc., since posting the query.

It has made me realise that even after 30 years as a genealogist,
albeit dealing entirely with English records, there is always
something new to be learnt! Once this particular exercise is over, I
shall be seeking another excuse to get back to Edinburgh and expand
my knowledge further.

My sincere thanks to all who have responded to this thread.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Relations are simply a tedious pack of people, who haven't got the remotest
knowledge of how to live, nor the remotest instinct about when to die."

Oscar Wilde
Graeme Wall
2005-02-16 19:35:29 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@smtp1.freeola.net>
***@stockdill.com ("Roy Stockdill") wrote:

[snip]
Once this particular exercise is over, I shall be seeking another excuse
to get back to Edinburgh and expand my knowledge further.
Surely the lure of the single malt is excuse enough :-)
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-16 23:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
[snip]
Once this particular exercise is over, I shall be seeking another excuse
to get back to Edinburgh and expand my knowledge further.
Surely the lure of the single malt is excuse enough :-)>
You don't have to go to Scotland to purchase a bottle of good single
malt. Our local Sainsbury's in Watford stocks umpteen of them.

However, I did get one they haven't got - or rather, my son bought it
for me (children do come in useful sometimes!). We did a quick tour
of the Scottish Parliament building and they have a gift shop which
sells all kinds of things, among them single malts with their own
Scottish Parliament brand label, so my lad got me a 10-year-old
Speyside.

There isn't much of it left, since I find it helps the fingers to
move when sitting at the computer late at night posting these
messages!

I can't help feeling Mr Blair is missing a trick here - but maybe
there is a Westminster Houses of Parliament-branded Scotch? Does
anyone know?

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

One would be in less danger
From the wiles of the stranger
If one's own kin and kith
Were more fun to be with

Ogden Nash
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-17 00:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Made with water from the Thames or Fleet in place of the Spey? No thanks.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
I am in better health, avoiding all fermented liquors, and drinking
nothing but London water with a million insects in every drop; he who
drinks a tumbler of London water has literally in his stomach more
animated beings than there are men, women and Children on the face of
the globe. Rev. Sydney Smith 1771-1854, Canon of St. Paul's.


Roy Stockdill wrote:
<snip>
Post by Roy Stockdill
I can't help feeling Mr Blair is missing a trick here - but maybe
there is a Westminster Houses of Parliament-branded Scotch? Does
anyone know?
S***@family-news.org
2005-02-18 10:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Andrew Sellon wrote in a message to Roy Stockdill:

AS> From: ***@sellon.vispa.com (Andrew Sellon)

AS> Made with water from the Thames or Fleet in place of the Spey? No
AS> thanks.

AS> Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
AS> I am in better health, avoiding all fermented liquors, and drinking
AS> nothing but London water with a million insects in every drop; he
AS> who drinks a tumbler of London water has literally in his stomach
AS> more animated beings than there are men, women and Children on the
AS> face of the globe. Rev. Sydney Smith 1771-1854, Canon of St.
AS> Paul's.

Drink it and get cholera.

Don't drink it and get allergies.

It's up to you.

Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: ***@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)
Jeff
2005-02-17 04:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
I can't help feeling Mr Blair is missing a trick here -
but maybe
Post by Roy Stockdill
there is a Westminster Houses of Parliament-branded
Scotch? Does
Post by Roy Stockdill
anyone know?
Not as far as I know, but, believe it or not they used to
have a House of Commons brand of cigarettes. I doubt if they
still do.
Eve McLaughlin
2005-02-17 11:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff
Not as far as I know, but, believe it or not they used to
have a House of Commons brand of cigarettes. I doubt if they
still do.
And wasn't there supposed to be a brand of Japanese whisky 'distilled in
the cellars of Buckingham Palace by King George VI? Someone swroe he'd
seen it in ?India.
--
Eve McLaughlin

Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
Graeme Wall
2005-02-17 19:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eve McLaughlin
Post by Jeff
Not as far as I know, but, believe it or not they used to
have a House of Commons brand of cigarettes. I doubt if they
still do.
And wasn't there supposed to be a brand of Japanese whisky 'distilled in
the cellars of Buckingham Palace by King George VI? Someone swroe he'd
seen it in ?India.
Are you think of the Fine Old King Victoria Scotch Whisky, distilled in
Tokyo?
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
bill
2005-02-17 12:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Roy Stockdill
I can't help feeling Mr Blair is missing a trick here -
but maybe
Post by Roy Stockdill
there is a Westminster Houses of Parliament-branded
Scotch? Does
Post by Roy Stockdill
anyone know?
Not as far as I know, but, believe it or not they used to
have a House of Commons brand of cigarettes. I doubt if they
still do.
Yes they do...or did a number of years ago. Our previous MP donated a bottle
of "House of Commons" whisky for a charity raffle about 10 years ago

Bill
Graeme Wall
2005-02-17 19:20:05 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@smtp2.freeola.net>
***@stockdill.com ("Roy Stockdill") wrote:

[snip]
Post by Roy Stockdill
I can't help feeling Mr Blair is missing a trick here - but maybe
there is a Westminster Houses of Parliament-branded Scotch? Does
anyone know?
There is, has been for many years. But I think its a blend, not a single
malt. Haven't had a drink in the House for nearly 20 years.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Stuart Cresswell
2005-02-16 15:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
An old street directory might be the best indicator of the type of
premises involved, the current council tax/rates database jumps from
306 to 415 London Road. The police station on the north side is No.851
so 320 looks like it used to be on the south side somewhere around
Bridgeton station, possibly replaced by some new roads to the west of
the station.
Not so far out. My well worn stret arlas shows 262 on the south side
just west of the junction with Teith Place and Bain Street and 490
justeast of Arcadia Street.

That would put 320 about Morris Place.

The Glasgow Room of the Mitchell Library in Glasgow has a very good run
of Post Office Directories which would allow you to pinpoint the site.

They also list the head of household at the address. But beware - I
think that these were tenements which might have a dozen homes in each
close. In which case often the PO did not list anyone!

IIRC they were all knocked down about 30 years ago and replaced with
modern brick built boxes.

Stuart
Sheena Tait
2005-02-17 13:32:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:06:00 GMT, Stuart Cresswell
Post by Stuart Cresswell
Post by Charles Ellson
An old street directory might be the best indicator of the type of
premises involved, the current council tax/rates database jumps from
306 to 415 London Road. The police station on the north side is No.851
so 320 looks like it used to be on the south side somewhere around
Bridgeton station, possibly replaced by some new roads to the west of
the station.
Not so far out. My well worn stret arlas shows 262 on the south side
just west of the junction with Teith Place and Bain Street and 490
justeast of Arcadia Street.
That would put 320 about Morris Place.
The Glasgow Room of the Mitchell Library in Glasgow has a very good run
of Post Office Directories which would allow you to pinpoint the site.
They also list the head of household at the address. But beware - I
think that these were tenements which might have a dozen homes in each
close. In which case often the PO did not list anyone!
IIRC they were all knocked down about 30 years ago and replaced with
modern brick built boxes.
Stuart
I've just had a look and there's a picture of 320 London Road on the
Virtual Mitchell site at www.mitchelllibrary.org/. It's an Italian
ice-cream parlour on the ground floor of a tenement block and the
picture was taken in Aug 1936.
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-17 14:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sheena Tait
I've just had a look and there's a picture of 320 London Road on the
Virtual Mitchell site at www.mitchelllibrary.org/. It's an Italian
ice-cream parlour on the ground floor of a tenement block and the
picture was taken in Aug 1936.>
Many thanks for that. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said.

I'm sure the MP whose ancestry I am researching will be thrilled to
know that her grandparents were married in an ice cream parlour !!!

Actually, the marriage was 3 years before that picture was taken and
it may have been something else then. However, I suspect there was
probably an office of some kind in the building above.

But thanks again - most intriguing

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."

Mark Twain
Lesley Robertson
2005-02-17 15:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Sheena Tait
I've just had a look and there's a picture of 320 London Road on the
Virtual Mitchell site at www.mitchelllibrary.org/. It's an Italian
ice-cream parlour on the ground floor of a tenement block and the
picture was taken in Aug 1936.>
Many thanks for that. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said.
I'm sure the MP whose ancestry I am researching will be thrilled to
know that her grandparents were married in an ice cream parlour !!!
I thought that you said they were Italian? In Scotland, where else would be
more suitable??? There's been some very famous Italian iceream parlours in
Scotland.
It was quite common in Scotland for folk to be married at home, or at the
homes of friends & family, or even in the Manse. Actually getting wed inside
the Church was the exception rather than the rule in the collection of 19th
century marriage certs I've recently been indexing!
Lesley Robertson
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-17 15:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Sheena Tait
I've just had a look and there's a picture of 320 London Road on the
Virtual Mitchell site at www.mitchelllibrary.org/. It's an Italian
ice-cream parlour on the ground floor of a tenement block and the
picture was taken in Aug 1936.>
Many thanks for that. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said.
I'm sure the MP whose ancestry I am researching will be thrilled to
know that her grandparents were married in an ice cream parlour !!!
I thought that you said they were Italian? In Scotland, where else would be
more suitable??? There's been some very famous Italian iceream parlours in
Scotland.
It was quite common in Scotland for folk to be married at home, or at the
homes of friends & family, or even in the Manse. Actually getting wed inside
the Church was the exception rather than the rule in the collection of 19th
century marriage certs I've recently been indexing!>
Actually, it wasn't that line of her ancestors who were Italian. She
had a gt-gt-grandmother with an Italian name, Rigali, who is proving
something of a mystery, since in the 1881 census she said she was
born in Germany, in 1891 in Glasgow and in 1901 in Edinburgh. Of the
couple married by sheriff substitute's warrant at 320 London Rd,
Glasgow, the husband appears to have been a Protestant, since his
ancestors were Church of Scotland, Free Church of Scotland and
Primitive Methodists, while the wife was Catholic. I found another
couple in that line who were married in a Manse.

However, if it was common to get married at home, then it may well be
that they occupied an apartment above the ice cream parlour. Wonder
if they held the reception in the ice cream shop?

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."

Mark Twain
Sheena Tait
2005-02-18 12:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Sheena Tait
I've just had a look and there's a picture of 320 London Road on the
Virtual Mitchell site at www.mitchelllibrary.org/. It's an Italian
ice-cream parlour on the ground floor of a tenement block and the
picture was taken in Aug 1936.>
Many thanks for that. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said.
I'm sure the MP whose ancestry I am researching will be thrilled to
know that her grandparents were married in an ice cream parlour !!!
I thought that you said they were Italian? In Scotland, where else would be
more suitable??? There's been some very famous Italian iceream parlours in
Scotland.
It was quite common in Scotland for folk to be married at home, or at the
homes of friends & family, or even in the Manse. Actually getting wed inside
the Church was the exception rather than the rule in the collection of 19th
century marriage certs I've recently been indexing!>
Actually, it wasn't that line of her ancestors who were Italian. She
had a gt-gt-grandmother with an Italian name, Rigali, who is proving
something of a mystery, since in the 1881 census she said she was
born in Germany, in 1891 in Glasgow and in 1901 in Edinburgh. Of the
couple married by sheriff substitute's warrant at 320 London Rd,
Glasgow, the husband appears to have been a Protestant, since his
ancestors were Church of Scotland, Free Church of Scotland and
Primitive Methodists, while the wife was Catholic. I found another
couple in that line who were married in a Manse.
However, if it was common to get married at home, then it may well be
that they occupied an apartment above the ice cream parlour. Wonder
if they held the reception in the ice cream shop?
Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."
Mark Twain
Have you checked the addresses of the couple & the witnesses (on the
marriage certificate)? I know it sounds obvious but it's something I
sometimes get a mental blank about & then have a _doh_ moment when the
penny finally drops. The address for the flats above should be the
same as for the ice cream parlour.

Sheena
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-18 13:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sheena Tait
Have you checked the addresses of the couple & the witnesses (on the
marriage certificate)? I know it sounds obvious but it's something I
sometimes get a mental blank about & then have a _doh_ moment when the
penny finally drops. The address for the flats above should be the
same as for the ice cream parlour.>
Yes, I looked at the addresses of the couple and their witnesses
before whom they made the Declaration and none of them were 320
London Road. It may be the marriage took place in the apartment of
some friends, though I still think it is more likely to have been an
office of some kind, possibly that of a lawyer.

There was a 3-year gap between the marriage and the address becoming
an ice cream parlour, so maybe there was an office there before. I
think I will try some Glasgow directories and see if I can find one
for 1933.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

One would be in less danger
From the wiles of the stranger
If one's own kin and kith
Were more fun to be with

Ogden Nash
Stuart Cresswell
2005-02-19 18:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
It was quite common in Scotland for folk to be married at home, or at the
homes of friends & family, or even in the Manse. Actually getting wed inside
the Church was the exception rather than the rule in the collection of 19th
century marriage certs I've recently been indexing!
Lesley Robertson
This is the difference (Scotland vs England) that a certain Prince is
having with the location of his marriage.

In England until recently you had to get married in a church or a
register office. Now that has been extended to any licenced premises.
BUT it is still only premises that are licenced.

In Scotland you can be married where you like as long as you can
persuade a licenced person to perform at the location of your choice -
like on an Atlantic beach in Lewis or down a mine or at the top of Ben
Nevis. Of course there is nothing to stop you getting married in church,
at home, in a blacksmith's shop, etc. provided they are in Scotland and
the licenced person agrees.

Stuart
Charles Ellson
2005-02-19 21:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Cresswell
Post by Lesley Robertson
It was quite common in Scotland for folk to be married at home, or at the
homes of friends & family, or even in the Manse. Actually getting wed inside
the Church was the exception rather than the rule in the collection of 19th
century marriage certs I've recently been indexing!
Lesley Robertson
This is the difference (Scotland vs England) that a certain Prince is
having with the location of his marriage.
In England until recently you had to get married in a church or a
register office. Now that has been extended to any licenced premises.
BUT it is still only premises that are licenced.
In Scotland you can be married where you like as long as you can
persuade a licenced person to perform at the location of your choice -
like on an Atlantic beach in Lewis or down a mine or at the top of Ben
Nevis.
Although registrars were limited to ROs until the last couple of
years or so.
<snip>
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Stuart Cresswell
2005-02-19 18:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Sheena Tait
I've just had a look and there's a picture of 320 London Road on the
Virtual Mitchell site at www.mitchelllibrary.org/. It's an Italian
ice-cream parlour on the ground floor of a tenement block and the
picture was taken in Aug 1936.>
Many thanks for that. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said.
I'm sure the MP whose ancestry I am researching will be thrilled to
know that her grandparents were married in an ice cream parlour !!!
Actually, the marriage was 3 years before that picture was taken and
it may have been something else then. However, I suspect there was
probably an office of some kind in the building above.
But thanks again - most intriguing
The Italians have had Ice Cream parlours in Glasgow for a lot longer
than that.

Stuart
h***@hotmail.co.uk
2015-10-07 12:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Irregular marriage ?1845 18sept marriage in Paxton toll bar Hutton at foulton irregular marriage by rev a Christos of course could you tell me more about this form of marriage thank you
S Viemeister
2015-10-07 14:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.co.uk
Irregular marriage ?1845 18sept marriage in Paxton toll bar Hutton at foulton irregular marriage by rev a Christos of course could you tell me more about this form of marriage thank you
Glasgow University has information on irregular marriages here -
<http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/research/economicsocialhistory/historymedicine/scottishwayofbirthanddeath/marriage/>
Charles Ellson
2015-10-07 18:18:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 05:47:20 -0700 (PDT),
Post by h***@hotmail.co.uk
Irregular marriage ?1845 18sept marriage in Paxton toll bar Hutton at foulton
irregular marriage by rev a Christos of course could you tell me more about
this form of marriage thank you
If it specifies a single date and place then it would have been a
"marriage by declaration in front of witnesses" effectively a DIY
civil marriage involving no clergy, a valid form of marriage in
Scotland until 1940.
The warrant was the paperwork necessary (in substitution for a
completed and signed marriage schedule) to register such a marriage.
If there was one for this marriage then it suggests it was registered
some years later as civil registration did not start until 1855. After
a prolonged period (only 1 year was stated as necessary in a court
case a few years ago) it would have been more usual to prove an
irregular marriage by cohabitation with repute (living together and
being known as husband and wife) but I'm not aware of any limitation
if the couple turned up in court years later with the correct
witnesses to have it dealt with as a marriage by declaration. Marriage
by cohabitation with repute was abolished in 2006 except where such a
partnership already existed so in theory you could still have a couple
of centenarians knocking on the court door around 2090 (they must have
been legally capable of being married at the start and throughout the
duration of the claimed marriage).
CWatters
2015-10-08 19:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.co.uk
Irregular marriage ?1845 18sept marriage in Paxton toll bar Hutton at foulton irregular marriage by rev a Christos of course could you tell me more about this form of marriage thank you
Post here...

http://www.talkingscot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=488

says..

A marriage by 'Warrant of Sheriff' is a non-religious marriage unique to
Scotland. The couple would testify before witnesses (2 required) and
often in front of a solicitor. The testament would then be ratified by
the local Sheriff Substitute (who did all the work) and would then be
accepted by a registrar.
Charles Ellson
2015-10-08 22:29:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 20:26:34 +0100, CWatters
Post by CWatters
Post by h***@hotmail.co.uk
Irregular marriage ?1845 18sept marriage in Paxton toll bar Hutton at foulton irregular marriage by rev a Christos of course could you tell me more about this form of marriage thank you
Post here...
http://www.talkingscot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=488
says..
A marriage by 'Warrant of Sheriff' is
It was the registration that required the Sheriff's Warrant; that
warrant could only be issued after the marriage had taken place. With
a marriage by declaration there was no paperwork involved at the time
the marriage actually took place.
Post by CWatters
a non-religious marriage unique to
Scotland. The couple would testify before witnesses (2 required) and
often in front of a solicitor.
Who for this purpose was just another witness.
Post by CWatters
The testament would then be ratified by
the local Sheriff Substitute (who did all the work) and would then be
accepted by a registrar.
h***@hotmail.co.uk
2015-10-07 12:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Irregular marriage ?1845 18sept marriage in Paxton toll bar Hutton at foulton irregular marriage by rev a Christos of course could you tell me more about this form of marriage thank you
ecunningham
2015-10-07 20:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.co.uk
Irregular marriage ?1845 18sept marriage in Paxton toll bar Hutton at foulton irregular marriage by rev a Christos of course could you tell me more about this form of marriage thank you
Mention this at a family gathering, and all antennae will go up with
visions of "Daddy with a shotgun" and the constabulary! And you will
crush all their expectations with your genealogical knowledge. :))

ecunningham
Judy Philip
2005-02-15 06:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Roy,

The topic of "irregular marriage" in Scotland is fairly complex.

However, at the time you mention (1933), it would be fair (as you
suggest) to regard it as the equivalent of a "registry office"
marriage - though at that time "registry office" marriages didn't
officially (legally) exist in Scotland.

What I am about to say is a gross over-simplification but I hope that
it does the trick for a summary (and that it is clearly understood
that this is all it aspires to be. Perhaps I should also mention that
I am an Australian in Australia; my Scottish ancestor left there ca
1850 and the ancestor who most recently arrived in Australia came ca
1890 having left Yorkshire for NZ in 1876 ...).

The situation was that, until the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1939 came
into effect in July 1940, there was no such thing as civil marriage in
Scotland (Scottish Law is distinctive in quite a few areas).

Before this there were two sorts of marriages - both perfectly legal.
A couple could be married by a minister of religion (referred to as
"regular" marriage) or in several other ways (referred to as
"irregular" marriage - "irregular", in my view, being a very
misleading word).
"Irregular" marriages could take place:
* by declaration in front of witnesses (taking advantage of the
principle in Scots law that marriage was constituted by mutual
consent)
* by habit and repute (as described in the earlier response)
* by a promise of marriage followed by intercourse based on that
promise of marriage (as described in Latin in the earlier response).

How did the loaded word "irregular" (with its connotations to us of
something being not quite proper or legal) come to be applied to
perfectly legal marriages? It seems to me to have arisen from much
earlier days in the Established Church of Scotland - people who had
entered into the married state without the benefit of clergy were
often referred to very critically in the Old Parish Registers as
having been "irregularly" married (well, the ministers obviously
thought it was irregular!) and, having been suitably humbled, were
then "entered here married". So the word "irregular" entered into the
lexicon for marriages not performed by ministers of religion.
Unfortunately, that word "irregular" has misled a lot of genealogists
who have been concerned that there was something "shonky" about their
ancestors' marriages - when there wasn't at all.

When Statutory Registration was introduced in Scotland in 1855,
marriages by ministers of religion were automatically registered. But
"irregular" marriages were not - if people who had not been married by
ministers of religion wanted formal proof of their marriage and,
specifically, wanted it recorded in the Statutory Registers (and a
marriage certificate), they first had to have the fact that the
marriage had taken place verified by Warrant of Sheriff Substitute -
sounds very grand and formal but was often, I have the impression
(especially in more recent times), little more than a rubber stamp.

As you can imagine, as time went on this was a far from satisfactory
state of affairs for people who didn't want to go through a religious
form of marriage. But it took until July 1940 for the Law to catch up
with practice!

Meantime, there developed what I see as a "work-around".

A couple would make a time to go to the office of the local Sheriff
(Sheriff-Substitute) and would take two witnesses with them. The form
of contract generally adopted was a simple written declaration of
acceptance of each other as husband and wife before two witnesses -
and that form was often drawn up by the Sheriff's office. The Sheriff
(or his representative) would then issue a "warrant" (certification of
the marriage) which the couple would present to the Registrar who
would officially record the marriage and issue a certificate. As in
the case you describe, this often all happened on the same day - both
offices may even have been in the same building (perhaps adjacent!!).
Of course, it didn't have to happen like this (a Warrant could be
sought later) but I suspect that, in the 1900s, that was how it mostly
happened i.e. it was effectively the equivalent of a "civil" or
"registry office" but the processes had to be such as to comply with
what was fairly obviously an out-of-date law.

Here is a rather nice quote from a book "Scottish Roots" by Alwyn
James, ISBN 0-88289-802-7
"Up until 1940, Scotland had a distinctive form of marriage, known
rather imprecisely as an irregular marriage. This, the so-called
Gretna Green marriage which lured panting English lovers north of the
Border pursued by greybeard kinsmen brandishing swords, was a
perfectly acceptable alternative to the conventional church wedding,
involving instead a declaration in front of witnesses or before a
sheriff. The epithet "irregular" should not lead you to believe that
it was illegal or second-rate (it wasn't), or that it was indulged in
by a small minority: Dr. Ian Grant pointed out to me that in checking
through the first 200 marriages in Glasgow Blythswood for 1904, he
counted 81, more than 40 per cent, which were marriages by
declaration."

Regards,

Judy
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-15 09:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Judy -

Thank you for your 'idiots guide' to Scottish 'irregular' marriages,
most interesting. I have to confess to not realising that there was no
Civil Marriage in Scotland until 1940.

Your use of the word 'shonky' amused me, not having come accross it for
a long time. My reccollection of it is that it is very non-PC and
anti-Semitic in origin. I have a feeling that it is more commonly used
in Australian slang.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon

Judy Philip wrote:

<snip> So the word "irregular" entered into the
Post by Judy Philip
lexicon for marriages not performed by ministers of religion.
Unfortunately, that word "irregular" has misled a lot of genealogists
who have been concerned that there was something "shonky" about their
ancestors' marriages - when there wasn't at all.
<snip>
C Rihan
2005-02-15 10:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Sellon
Judy -
Thank you for your 'idiots guide' to Scottish 'irregular' marriages, most
interesting. I have to confess to not realising that there was no Civil
Marriage in Scotland until 1940.
I think there were a few novels (and even film?) where the plor
was based on these sorts of marriages.
eg A man and a woman forced to shelter under the same roof
overnight due to various circumstances, bad weather, etc
would find themselves then regarded legally as a married couiple.

Best wishes
C.Rihan
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-15 11:13:33 UTC
Permalink
The topic of "irregular marriage" in Scotland is fairly complex.>
splendid information snipped.....

Judy

I concur with Andrew's thanks for that superb exposition of the
concept of an "irregular" marriage under Scottish law. A couple of
points remain, if I may impose further upon your knowledge...

1) Is it likely that the fact both parties had been previously
widowed (not divorced) could have been a factor in their deciding to
indulge in this kind of marriage, rather than a church ceremony?

2) Would the marriage be recognised in England? Not that the couple
concerned moved to England, as far as I know, but their descendants
certainly did.

It also occurs to me that the type of marriage you describe, i.e. by
a joint declaration before witnesses with no religious ceremony and a
kind of rubber-stamping by an official, is not unlike the kind of
"clandestine" marriages that used to take place in England before
1754 and were outlawed by Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act. Perhaps it
is the use of the word "irregular" which has conjured up in my mind
the same concept!

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."

Mark Twain
Lesley Robertson
2005-02-15 12:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
It also occurs to me that the type of marriage you describe, i.e. by
a joint declaration before witnesses with no religious ceremony and a
kind of rubber-stamping by an official, is not unlike the kind of
"clandestine" marriages that used to take place in England before
1754 and were outlawed by Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act. Perhaps it
is the use of the word "irregular" which has conjured up in my mind
the same concept!
They could be even less formal than that, to the level of what is known in
England as a common law marriage. I have a book descriing the judgments of
one of the scottish 19th century Judges (published by admirers) and it is
full of discussions as to whether folk had done enough to be considered
married. One I remember involved accounts of the hotel keeper where a couple
stayed, various people in the horse market they had visited, and in a couple
of shops, all of who testified that they had heard the couple refer to each
other as "husband" and "wife". That plus the fact that they had stayed in a
"respectable" hotel led to a verdict of married. Another guy got done for
bigamy because he took one lady as his wife with him when his regiment went
to Gib, while having the army send some of his pay to his "wife" back in
Scotland. Verdict, guilty of bigamy even though he'd not gone through a
ceremony with either of them.
Essentially if you look like you're married and you behave as though you're
married, then you are married (although of course the Kirk fathers did not
/approve).
I bought the book by mistake, and kept it because I got interested in some
of the stories (it's another of the ones I let Rod Neep copy).
Lesley Robertson
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-15 12:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Lesley -

I have a feeling that the concept of the in fact non-existent "Common
Law" Marriage in the UK has been discussed on list before.

There aint no such thing, so nothing could be 'less formal'. Every year
hundreds, if not thousands, of unmarried persons in the modern UK whose
'live in' relationship with another comes to an end are caught out by
this misconception.

"More and more couples are choosing to not get married because of
convenience, the expense or simply because the traditional pressures
from society and the church are in decline. However, even though so many
single people are living together, very few are aware of their legal
rights, or rather lack of them, when it comes to property, maintenance,
children, or tax, according to a survey by Blandy & Blandy.

The myth of the ‘common law spouse’ is still going strong with the
majority of co-habitees surveyed, mistakenly believing themselves to be
a part of a 'common-law marriage', yet such a thing does not exist in
modern law. The reality is that unmarried couples enjoy and/or acquire
no special rights in relation to each other. Accordingly, when their
relationship ends, whether through separation or death, they are treated
as if they are two unrelated individuals no matter how long they have
lived together." <snip> (at
http://www.blandy.co.uk/press_releases_details_family.htm) puts it much
better than I could.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Post by Lesley Robertson
They could be even less formal than that, to the level of what is known in
England as a common law marriage. <snip>
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-15 12:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Roy Stockdill
It also occurs to me that the type of marriage you describe, i.e. by
a joint declaration before witnesses with no religious ceremony and a
kind of rubber-stamping by an official, is not unlike the kind of
"clandestine" marriages that used to take place in England before
1754 and were outlawed by Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act. Perhaps it
is the use of the word "irregular" which has conjured up in my mind
the same concept!
They could be even less formal than that, to the level of what is known in
England as a common law marriage. I have a book descriing the judgments of
one of the scottish 19th century Judges (published by admirers) and it is
full of discussions as to whether folk had done enough to be considered
married. One I remember involved accounts of the hotel keeper where a couple
stayed, various people in the horse market they had visited, and in a couple
of shops, all of who testified that they had heard the couple refer to each
other as "husband" and "wife". That plus the fact that they had stayed in a
"respectable" hotel led to a verdict of married. Another guy got done for
bigamy because he took one lady as his wife with him when his regiment went
to Gib, while having the army send some of his pay to his "wife" back in
Scotland. Verdict, guilty of bigamy even though he'd not gone through a
ceremony with either of them.
Essentially if you look like you're married and you behave as though you're
married, then you are married (although of course the Kirk fathers did not
/approve).>
Many thanks, Lesley, for this further contribution. The whole subject
is becoming quite entertaining!

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."

Mark Twain
Don Aitken
2005-02-15 16:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Roy Stockdill
It also occurs to me that the type of marriage you describe, i.e. by
a joint declaration before witnesses with no religious ceremony and a
kind of rubber-stamping by an official, is not unlike the kind of
"clandestine" marriages that used to take place in England before
1754 and were outlawed by Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act. Perhaps it
is the use of the word "irregular" which has conjured up in my mind
the same concept!
They could be even less formal than that, to the level of what is known in
England as a common law marriage. I have a book descriing the judgments of
one of the scottish 19th century Judges (published by admirers) and it is
full of discussions as to whether folk had done enough to be considered
married. One I remember involved accounts of the hotel keeper where a couple
stayed, various people in the horse market they had visited, and in a couple
of shops, all of who testified that they had heard the couple refer to each
other as "husband" and "wife". That plus the fact that they had stayed in a
"respectable" hotel led to a verdict of married. Another guy got done for
bigamy because he took one lady as his wife with him when his regiment went
to Gib, while having the army send some of his pay to his "wife" back in
Scotland. Verdict, guilty of bigamy even though he'd not gone through a
ceremony with either of them.
Essentially if you look like you're married and you behave as though you're
married, then you are married (although of course the Kirk fathers did not
/approve).>
Many thanks, Lesley, for this further contribution. The whole subject
is becoming quite entertaining!
Nobody seem to have answered your question as to whether such
marriages would be recognised in England. The answer is yes. Any
marriage either celebrated in Scotland or (if not celebrated at all)
recognised by warrant or declarator in Scotland based on facts arising
there was (and is) automatically valid in England. This is an aspect
of the more general rule that "lex loci celebrationis" prevails in
regard to the formal requirements for a marriage.

The reference to "Warrant or Decree of Declarator" on the certificate
is because the jurisdiction to recognise irregular marriages was
originally confined to the Commissary Court in Edinburgh, and later to
the Court of Session; both issued "Decrees of Declarator". It was
extanded to the Sheriff Courts (which issued Warrants) by mid-19th
century legislation. This made the precedure quicker and easier, since
there were Sheriff Courts all over the country.

The fact that an irregular marriage was recognised by the civil power
in this way did not prevent the Church of Scotland hauling the parties
before Kirk Session to do pennance for their temerity!
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-15 23:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Nobody seem to have answered your question as to whether such
marriages would be recognised in England. The answer is yes. Any
marriage either celebrated in Scotland or (if not celebrated at all)
recognised by warrant or declarator in Scotland based on facts arising
there was (and is) automatically valid in England. This is an aspect
of the more general rule that "lex loci celebrationis" prevails in
regard to the formal requirements for a marriage.
The reference to "Warrant or Decree of Declarator" on the certificate
is because the jurisdiction to recognise irregular marriages was
originally confined to the Commissary Court in Edinburgh, and later to
the Court of Session; both issued "Decrees of Declarator". It was
extanded to the Sheriff Courts (which issued Warrants) by mid-19th
century legislation. This made the precedure quicker and easier, since
there were Sheriff Courts all over the country.
The fact that an irregular marriage was recognised by the civil power
in this way did not prevent the Church of Scotland hauling the parties
before Kirk Session to do pennance for their temerity!>
Don, many thanks indeed for your response. I have learned much about
the Scottish system and marriage customs from this thread.


Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."

Mark Twain
Katherine Liney
2005-02-15 18:55:38 UTC
Permalink
I found an 1889 marriage by special declaration, while researching my
forebears. Scrawled across the certificate near the bottom is the word
"cousins" That may have had a bearing on the need for permission from the
County Sheriff
Kay


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Ellson
2005-02-15 20:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katherine Liney
I found an 1889 marriage by special declaration, while researching my
forebears. Scrawled across the certificate near the bottom is the word
"cousins" That may have had a bearing on the need for permission from the
County Sheriff
The word "cousins" is one of the normal details of the registration.
The column heading is:-

Signature of Parties
----------------------
Rank or Profession, Whether single or Widowed
and Relationship (if any)

IME many cousins were married (almost certainly to the knowledge of the
registrar) without it being specifically recorded.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Sheena Tait
2005-02-15 15:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
It also occurs to me that the type of marriage you describe, i.e. by
a joint declaration before witnesses with no religious ceremony and a
kind of rubber-stamping by an official, is not unlike the kind of
"clandestine" marriages that used to take place in England before
1754 and were outlawed by Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act. Perhaps it
is the use of the word "irregular" which has conjured up in my mind
the same concept!
As far as I understand it, they were similar to the pre-Hardwicke
"clandestine" marriages but of course Hardwicke did not apply in
Scotland. You might find the 1874 De Thoren v Wall case on this page
interesting:
http://slcc.strath.ac.uk/scotslawcourse/hw/irreg/hwirregclive_date.htm
as far as the legality in England of such a marriage is concerned -
the page seems to be part of a suite prepared by Strathclyde
University for students studying Scots Law. To a non-lawyer it
suggests that an irregular marriage *would* have been recognised in
England. If Amanda's still around she may be able to give an informed
opinion.

I think the term "irregular" applies to the eyes of the church rather
than the law as, of course, the church had a far greater influence and
importance in the past than it does now.

Sheena
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-15 12:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Judy -

You should not be apologising, mine was a genuine 'thank you' for
putting over what could be a difficult subject in a manner that even I
could understand.

As for your use of the word 'shonky' no one would have any excuse for
being offended by the manner in which you used it.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Sorry, Andrew - it wasn't meant to be "Scottish Irregular Marriages for
Dummies"! I have taken an interest in the subject (someone really should
research it thoroughly) and I was trying to (over)simplify it - especially
as (I believe) quite the wrong impression has been conveyed by the
descriptor "irregular". <snip>
Judy Philip
2005-02-15 13:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Andrew wrote:

#You should not be
etc, etc, etc

I'm getting really puzzled. I obviously haven't worked out newsgroups and
mailing lists! I read (that's present tense) soc.genealogy.britain on
Google newsgroups - Roy's post appeared there; I responded about 24 hours
ago but my post didn't appear; but a post from Charles Ellson did. I've
just checked again and my post is now there as the most recent post (this is
about midnight my time - summer time in South Australia).

However, in the interim, I received a cc of a post from Andrew Sellon -
which still doesn't appear on the newsgroup.

I've checked on the Rootsweb GENBRIT-L List - my initial post is there but
not my response to Andrew though his response to my response *is* there ...

Very puzzling ...

And obviously a moving target ...

Curioser and curioser, as Alice said ...

Perhaps the computer experts will explain.

Judy
Charani
2005-02-15 15:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judy Philip
#You should not be
etc, etc, etc
I'm getting really puzzled. I obviously haven't worked out newsgroups and
mailing lists! I read (that's present tense) soc.genealogy.britain on
Google newsgroups - Roy's post appeared there; I responded about 24 hours
ago but my post didn't appear; but a post from Charles Ellson did. I've
just checked again and my post is now there as the most recent post (this is
about midnight my time - summer time in South Australia).
However, in the interim, I received a cc of a post from Andrew Sellon -
which still doesn't appear on the newsgroup.
I've checked on the Rootsweb GENBRIT-L List - my initial post is there but
not my response to Andrew though his response to my response *is* there ...
Very puzzling ...
And obviously a moving target ...
Curioser and curioser, as Alice said ...
Perhaps the computer experts will explain.
I can see your response to Roy but not your post to which Andrew
responded. I've checked with both my usual newsserver and my backup
one and neither have your 2nd post.

I don't use GoogleGroups or the Rootsweb GENBRIT-L List.

The wonders of the web.
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-15 14:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judy Philip
I'm getting really puzzled. I obviously haven't worked out newsgroups and
mailing lists! I read (that's present tense) soc.genealogy.britain on
Google newsgroups - Roy's post appeared there; I responded about 24 hours
ago but my post didn't appear; but a post from Charles Ellson did. I've
just checked again and my post is now there as the most recent post (this is
about midnight my time - summer time in South Australia).
However, in the interim, I received a cc of a post from Andrew Sellon -
which still doesn't appear on the newsgroup.
I've checked on the Rootsweb GENBRIT-L List - my initial post is there but
not my response to Andrew though his response to my response *is* there ...
Very puzzling ...
And obviously a moving target ...
Curioser and curioser, as Alice said ...
Perhaps the computer experts will explain.>
I wish I could help, but I have the same problem! In fact, I have
twice within the last 48 hours been removed from the GENBRIT list
because, according to the automated message, my e-mail address was
generating an excessive amount of bounced mail. I complained to my
ISP but they deny responsibility. I resubscribed (twice) and then
received 160 messages all in one batch, whereas normally I get them
coming through perhaps half a dozen at a time.

Go figure (as I believe the modern saying goes).

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."

Oscar Wilde
Hugh Watkins
2005-02-15 16:27:10 UTC
Permalink
""Roy Stockdill"" <***@stockdill.com> wrote

snip
Post by Roy Stockdill
I wish I could help, but I have the same problem! In fact, I have
twice within the last 48 hours been removed from the GENBRIT list
because, according to the automated message, my e-mail address was
generating an excessive amount of bounced mail. I complained to my
ISP but they deny responsibility. I resubscribed (twice) and then
received 160 messages all in one batch, whereas normally I get them
coming through perhaps half a dozen at a time.
Go figure (as I believe the modern saying goes).
rootsweb mail server problems

and they try and save what they can by spooling the messages
whilst they repair the server

Bristol_and_Somerset list was horrible a few years ago
I was getting unsubscribed several times a day

http://www.rootsweb.com/

http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/

no statement about problems today

Hugh W
Judy Philip
2005-02-18 06:56:54 UTC
Permalink
This thread has taken some interesting twists and turns - not least of
which is the identification of 320 London Road, Glasgow (the location
of the wedding which started this thread) as being an Ice Cream
Parlour in 1936 (or at least that this was what was at street level at
this address).

Well, they could certainly have married in an Ice Cream Parlour in
Scotland in 1933! And this could have been either a "Regular"
Marriage (a Minister was able to marry a couple anywhere - and, as
Lesley has mentioned, it was a common practice for ministers to marry
couples elsewhere than in a church though a non-church venue was
normally a private home) or an "Irregular" Marriage by declaration in
front of witnesses (the couple could make such a declaration of
marriage in front of witnesses anywhere they liked - and, if they
wished, could later have it verified by Warrant of Sheriff and
registered in the Statutory Register). Though, as I mentioned, it was
common by this time for such declarations to be conducted in the
Sheriff's office using a form drawn up by the Sheriff's office.

However, as I understand it, nowadays things are different. Yes, they
could still be married in an Ice Cream Parlour in Scotland but the
standard provisions would allow for this only if they were married by
a Minister of Religion! In Scotland, Ministers may still conduct
marriages anywhere!
Extract from the GROS leaflet "Marriage in Scotland" follows:
" * A religious marriage, which may take place anywhere, may be
solemnised only by a minister, clergyman, priest or other person
entitled to do so under the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977."

Civil marriages in Scotland may be solemnised only by a registrar or
an assistant registrar who has been authorised by the Registrar
General for that purpose. And they may take place only in a
registration office or at an "approved place", lists of which are
available.

But it seems there is a way to get around this. It is possible to
apply for a temporary approval for a civil marriage to be conducted at
a place of your own choice (e.g. in your own home). So I guess an Ice
Cream Parlour is still a possibility for a secular marriage in
Scotland!

[Presumably this is not the case in England - if recent news reports
are to be believed! Yes, I'm referring to the son of - says she still
gritting her teeth about the outcome of our 1999 republic referendum -
Australia's foreign Head of State.]

There are no such restrictions in Australia (some things we get
right!) either for religious or secular marriages. Here Civil
Marriages are carried out by Civil Celebrants and it is the celebrant
who is approved (licensed). A Civil Celebrant may conduct a civil
marriage ANYWHERE and at ANY TIME - and they do and have!

Getting back to Scotland, something else I find of interest is that,
up until 1929, the formal position was that Scots Law followed Roman
Law in allowing a girl to marry at 12 and a boy at 14 without parental
consent (not that this was a normal practice!). The Age of Marriage
Act 1929 which covered Scotland, England and Wales placed 16 as the
lower limit. However Scots Law still has no requirement for parental
consent.

Sorry for the long post!

Judy
Lesley Robertson
2005-02-18 09:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judy Philip
This thread has taken some interesting twists and turns - not least of
which is the identification of 320 London Road, Glasgow (the location
of the wedding which started this thread) as being an Ice Cream
Parlour in 1936 (or at least that this was what was at street level at
this address).
Just a tiny note of caution - someone on soc.culture.scottish has just
pointed out that another photo occurs 3 times in that collection with 3
different years, spread over a couple of decades. Obviously the dating
should be taken as a guide, not 100% sure.
Lesley Robertson
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-18 11:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judy Philip
There are no such restrictions in Australia (some things we get
right!) either for religious or secular marriages. Here Civil
Marriages are carried out by Civil Celebrants and it is the celebrant
who is approved (licensed). A Civil Celebrant may conduct a civil
marriage ANYWHERE and at ANY TIME - and they do and have!>
Yes, when my niece got married in Wollongong in 1992 the wedding took
place in the home the couple were due to occupy and a very happy
occasion it was, too. We thoroughly enjoyed it. However, things are
moving along here in the UK as well. My wife and I went to a wedding
of the daughter of some friends at a hotel in St Albans a couple of
years ago. All kinds of places are now licensed to conduct marriages.

BTW, I presume everyone will have heard by now that Charles and
Audrey (oops, sorry, I mean Camilla - I have taken to calling her
Audrey because of her remarkable resemblance to Audrey Roberts in
Coronation Street) have had their plans to get married at Windsor
Castle scuppered and have had to move the ceremony to a nasty public
office in the Guildhall across the road? It seems the royal advisers,
with their usual bureaucratic efficiency, screwed up big-time and
failed to notice that in order to get a licence for the wedding
inside the castle it would mean that members of the public would also
have to be allowed to get married there for the next three years -
something HRH the Queen does not fancy, apparently.

Pardon my chortles.....

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There are no credentials. They do not even need a medical certificate. They need not
be sound either in mind or body. They only require a certificate of birth - just to
prove they are first of a litter. You would not choose a spaniel on these principles."

David Lloyd George on the aristocracy
C Rihan
2005-02-18 11:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
BTW, I presume everyone will have heard by now that Charles and
Audrey (oops, sorry, I mean Camilla - I have taken to calling her
Audrey because of her remarkable resemblance to Audrey Roberts in
Coronation Street) have had their plans to get married at Windsor
Castle scuppered and have had to move the ceremony to a nasty public
office in the Guildhall across the road?
Not so nasty, apparently it was designed by Sir Thomas Fiddes and
commenced in 1686, and completed by Sir Christopher Wren.in 1690

http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/windsor/guildhall/guildhall01.htm

Best wishes
C.Rihan
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-18 12:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by C Rihan
Post by Roy Stockdill
BTW, I presume everyone will have heard by now that Charles and
Audrey (oops, sorry, I mean Camilla - I have taken to calling her
Audrey because of her remarkable resemblance to Audrey Roberts in
Coronation Street) have had their plans to get married at Windsor
Castle scuppered and have had to move the ceremony to a nasty public
office in the Guildhall across the road?
Not so nasty, apparently it was designed by Sir Thomas Fiddes and
commenced in 1686, and completed by Sir Christopher Wren.in 1690>
I'm aware of that. It's actually a very attractive-looking building.
I was using the word "nasty" in an ironic sense meaning public and,
therefore, not quite the private ceremony inside the splendour of
Windsor Castle that had been envisaged. I was amused to wonder what
historians of the future will make of the fact that the heir to the
throne and his bride were married in a public town hall !

Seriously, though, when you think about it the enormity of this
cock-up almost defies belief. Presumably, Charles and Camilla and
their advisers have been discussing this pending marriage for many
months. They have apparently taken all kinds of legal advice as to
her constitutional position within the royal family, yet nobody
seemingly bothered to find out whether the castle was actually
licensed for marriages (which clearly it isn't) or to understand the
consequent implications of getting it licensed, i.e. they would have
to let the public marry there as well.

I wonder if any heads will roll? Don't suppose so. They will do as
they always do and pretend it never happened.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There are no credentials. They do not even need a medical certificate. They need not
be sound either in mind or body. They only require a certificate of birth - just to
prove they are first of a litter. You would not choose a spaniel on these principles."

David Lloyd George on the aristocracy
C Rihan
2005-02-18 12:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Seriously, though, when you think about it the enormity of this
cock-up almost defies belief. Presumably, Charles and Camilla and
their advisers have been discussing this pending marriage for many
months. They have apparently taken all kinds of legal advice as to
her constitutional position within the royal family, yet nobody
seemingly bothered to find out whether the castle was actually
licensed for marriages (which clearly it isn't) or to understand the
consequent implications of getting it licensed, i.e. they would have
to let the public marry there as well.
Always the little details which catch people out!
Though I must admit that it would never have occurred to me that
getting a licence would mean the public would be able to marry
there too.
I'd have thought that there would have to be permisssion and payment
of cost for hiring of location / staff for any place licensed for marriage.
I suppose anyone thinking of having a wedding at home better check
very carefully.

Best wishes
C.Rihan
Ed Barron
2005-02-20 12:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by C Rihan
Post by Roy Stockdill
BTW, I presume everyone will have heard by now that Charles and
Audrey (oops, sorry, I mean Camilla - I have taken to calling her
Audrey because of her remarkable resemblance to Audrey Roberts in
Coronation Street) have had their plans to get married at Windsor
Castle scuppered and have had to move the ceremony to a nasty public
office in the Guildhall across the road?
Not so nasty, apparently it was designed by Sir Thomas Fiddes and
commenced in 1686, and completed by Sir Christopher Wren.in 1690>
I'm aware of that. It's actually a very attractive-looking building.
I was using the word "nasty" in an ironic sense meaning public and,
therefore, not quite the private ceremony inside the splendour of
Windsor Castle that had been envisaged. I was amused to wonder what
historians of the future will make of the fact that the heir to the
throne and his bride were married in a public town hall !
Seriously, though, when you think about it the enormity of this
cock-up almost defies belief. Presumably, Charles and Camilla and
their advisers have been discussing this pending marriage for many
months. They have apparently taken all kinds of legal advice as to
her constitutional position within the royal family, yet nobody
seemingly bothered to find out whether the castle was actually
licensed for marriages (which clearly it isn't) or to understand the
consequent implications of getting it licensed, i.e. they would have
to let the public marry there as well.
<snip>

It sounds to me that the "happy couple" should just cut their losses,
proceed directly to Deeside, and get married there - it would seem
that in Scotalnd it is still legal to marry at any place they wish,
including Birkhall House where they are planning to spend the
honeymoon anyway!

Regards,

Ed Barron
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-18 13:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Roy -

But of course you chortle. We have all come to expect it from you on
such occasions.

From my memory no one in their correct senses could describe Windsor
Guildhall as "a nasty public office"; a more delightful mediæval
building it would be hard to imagine.

Others, in place of a chortle, might grin inwardly, (with perhaps a
certain amount of sympathy), thinking with a modicum of relief that they
are capable of making the odd mistake, it brings everything down to a
more everyday level.

Is this not something that you continually binde on about, "they" not
acting in the same way as "us"? Here a small error, of the type any of
us are capable of has been made. What do we find, when it does happen?
You continue to binde remorselessly on.

I also have my doubts as to whether, if a licence was granted to hold a
wedding there that crocodiles of engaged couples would have the right to
perambulate through the castle and come out married the other end. I
thought the license holder had every right to choose who should make use
of the premises for this purpose, but possibly you have researched this
and know better.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon


Roy Stockdill wrote:

<snip> have had their plans to get married at Windsor
Post by Roy Stockdill
Castle scuppered and have had to move the ceremony to a nasty public
office in the Guildhall across the road? It seems the royal advisers,
with their usual bureaucratic efficiency, screwed up big-time and
failed to notice that in order to get a licence for the wedding
inside the castle it would mean that members of the public would also
have to be allowed to get married there for the next three years -
something HRH the Queen does not fancy, apparently.
Pardon my chortles.....
Liz
2005-02-18 16:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Sellon
I also have my doubts as to whether, if a licence was granted to hold a
wedding there that crocodiles of engaged couples would have the right to
perambulate through the castle and come out married the other end. I
thought the license holder had every right to choose who should make use
of the premises for this purpose, but possibly you have researched this
and know better.
Contrary to popular belief the regulations on approved premises for
maariage in UK still have quite strict rules. The principle behind the
whole thing is that marriage is still meant to be a serious event and it
MUST be a public event.

Condition 2 is the one to watch. 'The premises must be regularly
available to the public for use for the solemnization of marriages'
Hence hotels, stately homes etc, but not someone's backyard as a
one-off. Actually, not the open air at all.

The premises MUST be 'known to the public as a marriage venue'. A
private house would be unlikely to be approved for this reason.

So unless the Royal Family planned to offer the building within Windsor
Castle to any couple wishing to marry, either before or after the
Charles nuptials they wouldn't get approval from the Registrar.

I'm extremely surprised that no-one picked this up before the detailed
announcement was made ... can't anyone in that lot Google? There are any
number of official sites that give the info if you put in 'Approved
Marriage Venue'.

I suspect they were mislead by the number of stately homes which now
offer this service and didn't realise that any old hoi polloi can marry
in any approved venue if they can afford the peripherals <vbg>

Liz (Greenwich UK)
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-18 17:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Liz -

Thank you for clearing that one up. As I said "I had my doubts";
obviously false ones

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon.


Liz wrote:

<snip>
Post by Liz
Contrary to popular belief the regulations on approved premises for
maariage in UK still have quite strict rules. The principle behind the
whole thing is that marriage is still meant to be a serious event and it
MUST be a public event.
Condition 2 is the one to watch. 'The premises must be regularly
available to the public for use for the solemnization of marriages'
Hence hotels, stately homes etc, but not someone's backyard as a
one-off. Actually, not the open air at all.
<snip>
Lesley Robertson
2005-02-18 17:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liz
I'm extremely surprised that no-one picked this up before the detailed
announcement was made ... can't anyone in that lot Google? There are any
number of official sites that give the info if you put in 'Approved
Marriage Venue'.
It would have been much simpler to head for Balmoral, or even Holyrood.
Lesley Robertson
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-18 18:26:33 UTC
Permalink
It would have been much simpler to head for Balmoral, or even Holyrood.>
Appropriate perhaps, since the last (and only) heir to the throne to
marry in Scotland was his 12x-great-grandmother Mary Queen of Scots
who got married twice at Holyrood - the first time in 1565 to Lord
Darnley and again 2 years later to the Earl of Bothwell.

No doubt someone will tell me it was Mary's son, James VI of Scotland
and I of England, but in fact James was married in Oslo, Norway, to
Anne of Denmark.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There are no credentials. They do not even need a medical certificate. They need not
be sound either in mind or body. They only require a certificate of birth - just to
prove they are first of a litter. You would not choose a spaniel on these principles."

David Lloyd George on the aristocracy
Hugh Watkins
2005-02-19 00:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
It would have been much simpler to head for Balmoral, or even Holyrood.>
Appropriate perhaps, since the last (and only) heir to the throne to
marry in Scotland was his 12x-great-grandmother Mary Queen of Scots
who got married twice at Holyrood - the first time in 1565 to Lord
Darnley and again 2 years later to the Earl of Bothwell.
No doubt someone will tell me it was Mary's son, James VI of Scotland
and I of England, but in fact James was married in Oslo, Norway, to
James Charles Stuart was born on June 19, 1566 at Edinburg Castle in
Scotland. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kingbio.htm
King James began to rule his native Scotland when he was 19 years old. A few
years later, he took Anne of Denmark to be his queen

From 1380 until 1814 Norway was in a union with Denmark via google
<<

Hugh W
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-19 06:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hugh Watkins
Post by Roy Stockdill
It would have been much simpler to head for Balmoral, or even Holyrood.>
Appropriate perhaps, since the last (and only) heir to the throne to
marry in Scotland was his 12x-great-grandmother Mary Queen of Scots
who got married twice at Holyrood - the first time in 1565 to Lord
Darnley and again 2 years later to the Earl of Bothwell.
No doubt someone will tell me it was Mary's son, James VI of Scotland
and I of England, but in fact James was married in Oslo, Norway, to
James Charles Stuart was born on June 19, 1566 at Edinburg Castle in
Scotland. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kingbio.htm
King James began to rule his native Scotland when he was 19 years old. A few
years later, he took Anne of Denmark to be his queen
From 1380 until 1814 Norway was in a union with Denmark via google>
Yes, I know, Hugh, but that wasn't my point. What I said was -
pre-empting someone who might try to tell me that James VI of
Scotland and I of England was married in Scotland - that James
married Anne of Denmark in Norway. She was trying to make her way to
Scotland for the marriage but her ship was held up by constant bad
weather. James, being impatient for his bride, hopped aboard a ship
himself and managed to get to Norway, despite the weather, where he
married her in the bishop's palace in Oslo. Lucky Anne hadn't set off
again, wasn't it, or they might have been ships that passed in the
night?

Mind you, knowing James's sexual predilections, one wonders why he
was so anxious to get to her !

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There are no credentials. They do not even need a medical certificate. They need not
be sound either in mind or body. They only require a certificate of birth - just to
prove they are first of a litter. You would not choose a spaniel on these principles."

David Lloyd George on the aristocracy
Vivienne Dunstan
2005-02-19 09:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
No doubt someone will tell me it was Mary's son, James VI of Scotland
and I of England, but in fact James was married in Oslo, Norway, to
Anne of Denmark.
The marriage was celebrated afterwards in Scotland though with heraldic
processions etc. through Edinburgh: sounds like great stuff. But yes
they married in person in Oslo, following an earlier proxy ceremony
(stand-in for James). For more information see David Stevenson's book
"Scotland's Last Royal Wedding". I'm unusually interested in this one
since my g..grandfather William Fowler was one of the Scottish party
sent out to negotiate with the Danes, in his case selected to represent
Edinburgh. Later on Fowler became secretary to Anne of Denmark.

Viv Dunstan
Stuart Cresswell
2005-02-19 18:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
No doubt someone will tell me it was Mary's son, James VI of Scotland
and I of England, but in fact James was married in Oslo, Norway, to
Anne of Denmark.
And of course it was well into 1603 when he inherited the English throne
though Elizabeth died in 1602.

Stuart
Don Aitken
2005-02-19 20:03:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:23:58 GMT, Stuart Cresswell
Post by Stuart Cresswell
Post by Roy Stockdill
No doubt someone will tell me it was Mary's son, James VI of Scotland
and I of England, but in fact James was married in Oslo, Norway, to
Anne of Denmark.
And of course it was well into 1603
in Scotland
Post by Stuart Cresswell
when he inherited the English throne though Elizabeth died in 1602.
in England
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
cecilia
2005-02-18 20:37:10 UTC
Permalink
[...] The principle behind the
whole thing is that marriage is still meant to be a serious event and it
MUST be a public event. [...] The premises must be regularly
available to the public for use for the solemnization of marriages'
Hence hotels, stately homes etc, but not someone's backyard as a
one-off. Actually, not the open air at all. [...]
My niece married a couple of years ago in a very small commune in
France. Those attending filled the 12C church for the religious service
- there was no possibility of their all fitting into the room at the
Mairie at the earlier legal wedding, so a table was brought out and the
ceremony took place in the open air outside the entrance.
Stuart Cresswell
2005-02-19 18:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liz
Contrary to popular belief the regulations on approved premises for
maariage in UK still have quite strict rules. The principle behind the
whole thing is that marriage is still meant to be a serious event and it
MUST be a public event.
For UK in this case read England and Wales - Scotland is different and
has more liberal marriage laws.

Stuart
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-18 17:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:57:53 +0000
Contrary to popular belief the regulations on approved premises for
maariage in UK still have quite strict rules. The principle behind the
whole thing is that marriage is still meant to be a serious event and it
MUST be a public event.>
I agree with you but how, precisely, does this fit with those
celebrities who hire an army of bouncers to keep out the public and
press because they are being paid 1 million pounds for the exclusive
rights by Hello! magazine? I seem to recall that the judge in the
Hello versus OK magazine over some celeb wedding or other (Catherine
Zeta Jones, was it?) made a comment to the fact that the public had a
legal right to be admitted to ALL marriage ceremonies but it didn't
seem to affect the outcome of the case.
The premises MUST be 'known to the public as a marriage venue'. A
private house would be unlikely to be approved for this reason.>
Perhaps this is why Madonna married in Scotland ?
I'm extremely surprised that no-one picked this up before the detailed
announcement was made ... can't anyone in that lot Google? There are any
number of official sites that give the info if you put in 'Approved
Marriage Venue'.>
Oh, come on, Liz! What on earth makes you think "that lot" know what
Google is? It took the royals long enough to drag themselves into
the 20th century, you can't expect them to come into the 21st just
like that. If the Queen uses a computer at all it's probably to check
the latest SPs with William Hill !

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There are no credentials. They do not even need a medical certificate. They need not
be sound either in mind or body. They only require a certificate of birth - just to
prove they are first of a litter. You would not choose a spaniel on these principles."

David Lloyd George on the aristocracy
Liz
2005-02-18 20:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Liz
I'm extremely surprised that no-one picked this up before the detailed
announcement was made ... can't anyone in that lot Google? There are any
number of official sites that give the info if you put in 'Approved
Marriage Venue'.>
Oh, come on, Liz! What on earth makes you think "that lot" know what
Google is? It took the royals long enough to drag themselves into
the 20th century, you can't expect them to come into the 21st just
like that. If the Queen uses a computer at all it's probably to check
the latest SPs with William Hill !
Ah, but my expectations were not that the said family members would
Google but that they would keep some chaps and chapesses to do it for
them .... much as there is a toothpaste squeezer and
hold-the-bottle-for- the-urine-sample-man .... surely there is
under-butler for downloading one's recreational porn ...?

Seriously, tho' ..... surely they are in a position to drop a note to
the Registrar General to check their plans conform ... he'd probably
even answer them .....

And don't tell me Camilla is working her wedding out on the back of an
envelope. I have an aquaintance who is a wedding-planner who assures me
that everyone in that game would have known immediately about the venue
problem ..... they are paid great wodges of geldt to know such things .....

My heart goes out to the minion who had to break the news. 'Um,
Sir,Ma'am, you know that wedding you were talking about,you know, the
one you had all those consultations with the Archbishop about and
finally found a compromise? ..... well, it seems ..... you can't, er,
actually, as it were, have what you want ...... Ow! Ow!'

Liz (Greenwich UK)
Jeff
2005-02-19 01:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
I agree with you but how, precisely, does this fit with
those
Post by Roy Stockdill
celebrities who hire an army of bouncers to keep out the
public and
Post by Roy Stockdill
press because they are being paid 1 million pounds for the
exclusive
Post by Roy Stockdill
rights by Hello! magazine? I seem to recall that the judge
in the
Post by Roy Stockdill
Hello versus OK magazine over some celeb wedding or other
(Catherine
Post by Roy Stockdill
Zeta Jones, was it?) made a comment to the fact that the
public had a
Post by Roy Stockdill
legal right to be admitted to ALL marriage ceremonies but
it didn't
Post by Roy Stockdill
seem to affect the outcome of the case.
Well, that wedding wasn't in UK (New York I think)
Judy Philip
2005-02-18 13:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Re Roy Stockdill's posts (subsequent to my last) - which I can't yet
see on Google groups but which I have read on the Genbrit-L archives
...

Well, I guess I too would be "chortling" were it just that the
"marriage" currently in the news is farcical (which, to me, it is) -
but to me (yes, this is a matter of personal opinion and I understand
that there are others whose opinions are diametrically opposed to
mine) it is not just farcical but is distasteful. Added to which I
can't forget that a foreign citizen, QE2, is our Head of State here in
Australia and that the person at the centre of this current brouhaha -
also a foreign citizen as far as Australia is concerned - is due to be
Australia's next Head of State. So I guess we Australians do have a
stake in the situation.

In a more general sense, as a viewer of these events from a distance,
it does make me wonder why the rush ... Because rushed it seemed to
be in any case but now it is demonstrated that it must have been
incredibly rushed for such an elementary mistake to have occurred -
and that's leaving aside the apparently still outstanding question of
whether a civil marriage is actually legal for a member of the English
(or British or Australian or Canadian etc, etc - whatever is the
right descriptor) royal family.

Yes Roy, civil marriages in Australia can be, as you indicate you are
aware from personal experience, great occasions. Two of my children
have been married in beautiful and meaningful civil ceremonies here in
Adelaide. One in a National Trust building (Ayers House, home of a
former Governor) some years back and the other just last year in the
Adelaide Botanic Gardens Italianate garden (in perfect weather).

Then again (as an aside) this flexibility of wedding venues means that
there have been some fairly offbeat weddings. In Sydney, people can
hire a helicopter and have the ceremony above the city; a search of
the Web for strange wedding venues finds a nudist wedding on a Sydney
beach (I'll spare everybody's blushes and won't give the URL). I seem
to recall reading about two scuba divers being married underwater.
I'm sure there have been even stranger places ...

Judy
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-18 13:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judy Philip
there have been some fairly offbeat weddings. In Sydney, people can
hire a helicopter and have the ceremony above the city; a search of
the Web for strange wedding venues finds a nudist wedding on a Sydney
beach (I'll spare everybody's blushes and won't give the URL). >
It took me all of 20 seconds or so to find it !

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Familiarity breeds contempt - and children."

Mark Twain
Jill.
2005-02-18 13:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judy Philip
I seem
to recall reading about two scuba divers being married underwater.
they have done that around here
:~)
--
Regards
Jill Bowis

Surnames search
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens
Bowis, Lister, Vaughn, Palin, Stewart, Newlove, Yabbicom,
Stewart [Paisley], MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith
Mair, Brown, Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter
Sumner, Moss, Haughton, Hampson, Owen,
Post by Judy Philip
I'm sure there have been even stranger places ...
Judy
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-18 14:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Judy -

Is that a blue or white garter the bride is wearing?

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon


Judy Philip wrote:

<snip> a search of
Post by Judy Philip
the Web for strange wedding venues finds a nudist wedding on a Sydney
beach (I'll spare everybody's blushes and won't give the URL). <snip>
Charani
2005-02-18 16:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judy Philip
In a more general sense, as a viewer of these events from a distance,
it does make me wonder why the rush ... Because rushed it seemed to
be in any case but now it is demonstrated that it must have been
incredibly rushed for such an elementary mistake to have occurred -
and that's leaving aside the apparently still outstanding question of
whether a civil marriage is actually legal for a member of the English
(or British or Australian or Canadian etc, etc - whatever is the
right descriptor) royal family.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought it was rushed. Just 2
months from the announcement to the deed.

I suppose they could have let it go ahead but priced the hire of the
Castle and associated staff so high that Jo/e Public couldn't afford
it ;))
Hugh Watkins
2005-02-18 17:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judy Philip
Re Roy Stockdill's posts (subsequent to my last) - which I can't yet
see on Google groups but which I have read on the Genbrit-L archives
...
Well, I guess I too would be "chortling" were it just that the
"marriage" currently in the news is farcical (which, to me, it is) -
but to me (yes, this is a matter of personal opinion and I understand
that there are others whose opinions are diametrically opposed to
mine) it is not just farcical but is distasteful.
a widow and a divorcee getting married

so what?
about time the dear old C of E made some progress in this and other fields

women bishops for example
disestablishment too
Post by Judy Philip
The Liberation Society, a body seeking the disestablishment of the Church
of England in its entirety, was founded in 1844<<
says BBC web site

Hugh W
Lesley Robertson
2005-02-18 18:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hugh Watkins
a widow and a divorcee getting married
Just as a point of interest (I wondered about this the other day when
someone on R4 described the PoW as a widower) - if you're divorced and your
ex then dies, DOES that make you a widow/widower? I seem to remember seeing
Bob Geldorf also being described as a widower.... Surely the divorce has
already de-married you before the Grim Reaper arrives?
It can certainly make MIs complicated - I know of one stone that reads
(names removed as she has living grandchildren that I know of):

In memory of Grizzel Wwwwww
Formerly Grizzel Xxxxxxxx
Widow of John Yyyyyyyyy
by her husband James Zzzzzzzz
When I checked, the surname Xxxxxxxx referred to a short marriage that ended
in divorce.
Lesley Robertson
Serena Blanchflower
2005-02-18 18:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Just as a point of interest (I wondered about this the other day when
someone on R4 described the PoW as a widower) - if you're divorced and your
ex then dies, DOES that make you a widow/widower?
No, it doesn't, you remain a divorce(e); I wondered about this one
when my ex died a few years ago and checked. As far as remarrying in
church is concerned though, it does mean that you have no spouse
living; I assume that anyone who didn't recognise divorce might well
consider the person to be a widow(er).
--
Cheers, Serena
Mobility is the enemy of beauty... (Fascinating Aida)
S Viemeister
2005-02-18 18:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Just as a point of interest (I wondered about this the other day when
someone on R4 described the PoW as a widower) - if you're divorced and your
ex then dies, DOES that make you a widow/widower? I seem to remember seeing
Bob Geldorf also being described as a widower.... Surely the divorce has
already de-married you before the Grim Reaper arrives?
I assumed that what was meant, was that he was a widower in the eyes of the
Church?

Sheila
Graeme Wall
2005-02-19 20:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Hugh Watkins
a widow and a divorcee getting married
Just as a point of interest (I wondered about this the other day when
someone on R4 described the PoW as a widower) - if you're divorced and your
ex then dies, DOES that make you a widow/widower?
Does in the eyes of those churches that don't allow divorce.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-20 23:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Just as a point of interest (I wondered about this the other day when
someone on R4 described the PoW as a widower) - if you're divorced and your
ex then dies, DOES that make you a widow/widower?
Does in the eyes of those churches that don't allow divorce.>
Churches? Plural? Surely there is only one church that doesn't allow
or accept divorce, isn't there? But since that is the RC Church and
we have firmly established that neither Charles or Camilla are RC,
what relevance does that have here?

Of rather more interest - which nobody has yet commented on - is the
story in today's Mail on Sunday which suggests that a civil marriage
of a royal may not be legal at all wherever it takes place (in
England, that is). The legal arguments are somewhat convoluted to
follow, but it all seems to hinge on the interpretation of a
particular clause in two Royal Marriage Acts, one in 1836 and another
in 1947.

I can yet see Charles and Audrey (sorry, Camilla) eloping to Gretna
Green !

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There are no credentials. They do not even need a medical certificate. They need not
be sound either in mind or body. They only require a certificate of birth - just to
prove they are first of a litter. You would not choose a spaniel on these principles."

David Lloyd George on the aristocracy
Sharon
2005-02-20 23:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Can't seem to find anything on that on the BBC today,
but it is on CTV Cdn network.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1108924075933_104333275/?hub=TopStories

Sharon
Post by Roy Stockdill
Of rather more interest - which nobody has yet
commented on - is the
story in today's Mail on Sunday which suggests that
a civil marriage
of a royal may not be legal at all wherever it takes
place (in
England, that is). The legal arguments are somewhat
convoluted to
follow, but it all seems to hinge on the
interpretation of a
particular clause in two Royal Marriage Acts, one in
1836 and another
in 1947.
I can yet see Charles and Audrey (sorry, Camilla)
eloping to Gretna
Green !
Roy Stockdill
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Jeff
2005-02-20 23:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Roy Stockdill
Of rather more interest - which nobody has yet commented
on - is the
Post by Roy Stockdill
story in today's Mail on Sunday which suggests that a
civil marriage
Post by Roy Stockdill
of a royal may not be legal at all wherever it takes place
(in
Post by Roy Stockdill
England, that is). The legal arguments are somewhat
convoluted to
Post by Roy Stockdill
follow, but it all seems to hinge on the interpretation of
a
Post by Roy Stockdill
particular clause in two Royal Marriage Acts, one in 1836
and another
Post by Roy Stockdill
in 1947.
Not that I care one way or the other but this does have the
potential to be quite amusing.

The 1936 Act definitely states that members of the royal
family cannot have civil marriages. The argument revolves
around whether the 1949 Act changed this. The government
didn't think so the then Lord Chancellor told Princess
Margaret that a civil ceremony would NOT be legal in
England.

What is priceless is that as soon as the marriage notice is
posted anyone can raise objections which the Registrar will
have to rule on. I'd guess there is a real possibility of
legislation having to be rushed through Parliament.
Don Aitken
2005-02-20 23:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Lesley Robertson
Just as a point of interest (I wondered about this the other day when
someone on R4 described the PoW as a widower) - if you're divorced and your
ex then dies, DOES that make you a widow/widower?
Does in the eyes of those churches that don't allow divorce.>
Churches? Plural? Surely there is only one church that doesn't allow
or accept divorce, isn't there? But since that is the RC Church and
we have firmly established that neither Charles or Camilla are RC,
what relevance does that have here?
Actually there is only one Church which believes (or so its hierarchs
would like us to think) that marriage is genuinely indissoluble. The
RC Church may not have divorce, but it has a wide-ranging provision
for annulment, which comes to much the same thing in practice. There
is no provision for annulment at all in the Anglican church. That, of
course, is because all matters relating to marriage and divorce were
transferred from the ecclesiastical to the secular courts in 1857. The
CofE is an established church, which means, not that the royal family,
or anyone else, has to follow the whims of its bishops, but that the
church is subject the the laws of the state. In spite of all the
vapourings about "the eyes of the church", it has no jurisdiction at
all to "not allow" divorce.
Post by Roy Stockdill
Of rather more interest - which nobody has yet commented on - is the
story in today's Mail on Sunday which suggests that a civil marriage
of a royal may not be legal at all wherever it takes place (in
England, that is). The legal arguments are somewhat convoluted to
follow, but it all seems to hinge on the interpretation of a
particular clause in two Royal Marriage Acts, one in 1836 and another
in 1947.
Laid out in great detail on Panorama last week.
Post by Roy Stockdill
I can yet see Charles and Audrey (sorry, Camilla) eloping to Gretna
Green !
All it would take for a valid marriage in England is *one* Anglican
clergyman prepared to perform it. It can be done anywhere, and no
notice, banns, license, or any other formalities would be required.
Hardwicke's Act, like all subsequent legislation on marriage, had an
"except the royal family" clause.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-21 00:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
All it would take for a valid marriage in England is *one* Anglican
clergyman prepared to perform it. It can be done anywhere, and no
notice, banns, license, or any other formalities would be required.
Hardwicke's Act, like all subsequent legislation on marriage, had an
"except the royal family" clause.>
Ah, now that thought is rather clever! But also somewhat convoluted,
if I may say so.

You mean that the 1753 Hardwick's Marriage Act did not apply to the
royals, so that it would still be open to a rogue priest (they were
called "hedge priests" sometimes, I believe) to marry Charles and
Camilla wherever they chose - in the Fleet Prison if it still existed
- and no questions asked?

Hmmm...interesting thought.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There are no credentials. They do not even need a medical certificate. They need not
be sound either in mind or body. They only require a certificate of birth - just to
prove they are first of a litter. You would not choose a spaniel on these principles."

David Lloyd George on the aristocracy
Don Aitken
2005-02-21 01:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Don Aitken
All it would take for a valid marriage in England is *one* Anglican
clergyman prepared to perform it. It can be done anywhere, and no
notice, banns, license, or any other formalities would be required.
Hardwicke's Act, like all subsequent legislation on marriage, had an
"except the royal family" clause.>
Ah, now that thought is rather clever! But also somewhat convoluted,
if I may say so.
You mean that the 1753 Hardwick's Marriage Act did not apply to the
royals, so that it would still be open to a rogue priest (they were
called "hedge priests" sometimes, I believe) to marry Charles and
Camilla wherever they chose - in the Fleet Prison if it still existed
- and no questions asked?
It has been done. The Rev. R. Anderson Jardine, vicar of Darlington,
married the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in 1937. The church hierarchy
were furious, but were advised that no disciplinary steps could be
taken against him (except to deny him further preferment for the rest
of his life, of course). The local maire was also present to ensure
that the formalities required by French law were observed, but either
way the result was valid in the UK.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Jenny M Benson
2005-02-20 23:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Surely there is only one church that doesn't allow or accept divorce,
isn't there?
Even the Catholic Church accepts that sometimes a civil divorce is the
right course of action. What it does not allow is for the parties (if
Catholic) to do things which were forbidden to them when they were
married - eg marry again!
--
Jenny M Benson
Graeme Wall
2005-02-21 19:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Lesley Robertson
Just as a point of interest (I wondered about this the other day when
someone on R4 described the PoW as a widower) - if you're divorced and
your ex then dies, DOES that make you a widow/widower?
Does in the eyes of those churches that don't allow divorce.>
Churches? Plural? Surely there is only one church that doesn't allow
or accept divorce, isn't there? But since that is the RC Church and
we have firmly established that neither Charles or Camilla are RC,
what relevance does that have here?
You are ignoring both the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches. Not that I'm
implying that either is a member of one of them.

[snip]
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Jeff
2005-02-22 18:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Not that I'm > implying that either is a member of one
of them.
Thank Heavens for that !!! We had enough trouble convincing
Sharon that Camilla and Wallis Simpson weren't RC !!!!!! :-)
Steve Hayes
2005-02-23 04:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Lesley Robertson
Just as a point of interest (I wondered about this the other day when
someone on R4 described the PoW as a widower) - if you're divorced and
your ex then dies, DOES that make you a widow/widower?
Does in the eyes of those churches that don't allow divorce.>
Churches? Plural? Surely there is only one church that doesn't allow
or accept divorce, isn't there? But since that is the RC Church and
we have firmly established that neither Charles or Camilla are RC,
what relevance does that have here?
You are ignoring both the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches. Not that I'm
implying that either is a member of one of them.
Which have been casigated by Anglicans because they allow remarriage after
divorce.

Charles has shown an interest, though, and has visited Orthodox monasteries
quite a lot recently.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: ***@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
Judy Philip
2005-02-19 03:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hugh Watkins
a widow and a divorcee getting married
so what?
Hugh, do you know something we don't?

Judy
Stuart Cresswell
2005-02-19 18:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hugh Watkins
a widow and a divorcee getting married
Actualy the notice of marriage is for two divorced people - it does not
mention that one of the divorced spouses has died since..

Stuart
Graeme Wall
2005-02-19 18:17:44 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@posting.google.com>
***@ozemail.com.au (Judy Philip) wrote:

[snip]
Post by Judy Philip
[Presumably this is not the case in England - if recent news reports
are to be believed! Yes, I'm referring to the son of - says she still
gritting her teeth about the outcome of our 1999 republic referendum -
Australia's foreign Head of State.]
I think she was hoping you'd vote Yes to a republic.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Hugh Watkins
2005-02-15 15:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Here's a quick query for my Scottish friends, following on again from
my recent visit to the GROS in Edinburgh.
I have a marriage in 1933 and, whilst all the others took place
either in a Catholic Church or Church of Scotland, etc, this was some
kind of civil ceremony at an address which I take to have been a
register office or similar.
The marriage was on 4 November 1933 and both parties were widowed, so
had been previously married. The bridegroom was aged 30 and the bride
34. The certificate states that the marriage took place at 320,
London Road, Glasgow "By Declaration in the presence of [two
witnesses named]". The penultimate column states that the marriage
was by "Warrant of Sheriff Substitute of Lanarkshire, dated 4th
November 1933".
The official heading above the column states: "If a Regular Marriage,
signature and designation of Officiating Minister and signatures and
addresses of witnesses; If an Irregular Marriage, Date of Decree of
Declarator, or of sheriff's Warrant". I take it therefore that this
was an "Irregular" marriage.
Since the Scottish system is different, I'd be interested in a little
background as to what precisely a Sheriff Substitute is and was this
the equivalent of an English register office marriage or something
different again? Why is it called "Irregular"? I gather from a spot
of Googling that a Sheriff Substitute is a magistrate of sorts,
rather than a registrar of births, marriages & deaths.
one of my under 21 army friends ran away to Gretna Green in about 1958

there the blacksmiths shop was used for common law marriages

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/alternative_lifestyles/common_law_marriages/index.shtml

something still survives in USA

http://www.geocities.com/k_garber/history.html
Handfasting at one time was the only way that couples could be engaged
and/or get married because the church let the civil government of the period
take care of these matters. In the British Isles,

Handfasting was the old pagan ritual of marriage and it remained legal in
Scotland all the way up to 1939, even after Lord Harwicke's Act of 1753
declaring that marriages in England were legal only if performed by a
clergyman.After Lord Harwicke's Act, the Scottish border town, Gretna Green
became a mecca for eloping couples from England who fled there to perform
their own Handfastings. In those times, the couple themselves performed the
Handfasting before witnesses. It was also used in Scotland for the
engagement period of a year and a day before a wedding was proved.<<

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/7023/clandestine.html
Because of the small price, the privacy it afforded to a couple, and the
quick nature of the process, clandestine "Fleet Street" marriages were very
popular. Indeed, the marriage trade became so lucrative that a 1755 survey
estimated that every second or third house within the vicinity of the Fleet
Prison was used for this purpose. During the 1730's and 40's, several
prominent houses each married between two and three thousand couples a year.

Hugh W
Charani
2005-02-15 15:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hugh Watkins
one of my under 21 army friends ran away to Gretna Green in about 1958
It's still possible too :))

http://weddings.gretnagreen.com/w_planning.html
Vivienne Dunstan
2005-02-15 17:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charani
It's still possible too :))
http://weddings.gretnagreen.com/w_planning.html
Or people can run away to get married in other places. My husband and I
did, over 10 years ago now, actually elsewhere in Dumfriesshire, but
more to be near my home town up the road in the Scottish Borders. It was
a runaway marriage with no guests and just the photographer and a second
witness dragged in from the street. This particular registry office
clearly gets a lot of cast-offs from Gretna (which is booked up well in
advance) and the Registrar was delighted to have a local for a change
who went to the same school as her, a few miles further north.

Our wedding was really special and low-budget but a lot of "run-away"
weddings now are much more pre-planned, with guests etc. As a Scottish
Borderer it's nice to think that I was continuing a local tradition :)

Viv Dunstan
Charani
2005-02-16 16:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vivienne Dunstan
Or people can run away to get married in other places. My husband and I
did, over 10 years ago now, actually elsewhere in Dumfriesshire, but
more to be near my home town up the road in the Scottish Borders. It was
a runaway marriage with no guests and just the photographer and a second
witness dragged in from the street. This particular registry office
clearly gets a lot of cast-offs from Gretna (which is booked up well in
advance) and the Registrar was delighted to have a local for a change
who went to the same school as her, a few miles further north.
Our wedding was really special and low-budget but a lot of "run-away"
weddings now are much more pre-planned, with guests etc. As a Scottish
Borderer it's nice to think that I was continuing a local tradition :)
Sounds like it was a lot of fun too :))

Hardly a "run-away" wedding if there are lots of guests, unless the
guests had been chasing after the "run-aways" ;))

A tradition worth continuing :))
Eve McLaughlin
2005-02-16 01:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hugh Watkins
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/7023/clandestine.html
Because of the small price, the privacy it afforded to a couple, and the
quick nature of the process, clandestine "Fleet Street" marriages were very
popular.
Mistake there - it was not 'Fleet Street', but 'Marriages in the Fleet'
i.e. the vicinity of the Fleet Prison, and it also covered various other
venues, like coffee houses and places like Keith's Mayfair chapel (two
chairs, no waiting)
--
Eve McLaughlin

Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...