Place of marriage - a query,.....

[LesleyB]

I've noticed before but not really paid attention to the fact that many of the entries I have for post 1855 marriages seem to have taken place at street addresses, although the wedding appears to have been performed by a minister. Does anyone know, was this just how things were done then, and weddings were more often than not NOT in a church, or is there some other explanation?

Here are some of the addresses given on marriage entries- it does not seem to be restricted to a particular decade:

1869, 13 Saxe-Coburg Place Edinburgh
1874, 6 Archibald Place, Edinburgh
1890, 31 Lothian Rd, Edinburgh
1894, The Windsor Hotel, St Vincent Street, Glasgow
1921, 28 Inverleith Terrace, Edinburgh
1926, St. Enoch's Station Hotel, Blythswood, Lanark

This may be one of those daft questions, but I don't know the answer...hoping someone can elucidate.

best wishes
Lesley

[DavidWW]

Despite what one leading Engish genealogist recently wrote on the Scottish situation, up until the early 1900s it was distinctly unusual for the wedding ceremony to take place in the church.

The much more important church involvement in the situation in terms of what took place in the church itself was the calling or proclamation or "crying" of the banns, most often 3 times during morning and evening services over two consecutive Sundays, sometimes over 3 Sundays, and, in exceptional situations (c'mon there at the back of the class, - use your imagination in terms of the urgency of the situation ) on just the one Sunday, - twice during the longer morning service and once during the evening service. In the latter case the minister was unlikely to do this unless he knew the couple well, and he had to wait 48 hours to see if there were any objections before giving the couple the go ahead for the actual ceremony.

The marriage ceremony more normally took place in the home of the bride, or maybe at the manse, or possibly some local public building suitable for the subsequent celebrations, the latter especially so in large towns and cities from the late 1800s onwards

In fact, marriage at the home of the bride continued well into the 1900s - when I think about it I'm not sure if a major Act of Parliament in relation to marriage in Scotland, in 1939, altered the situation in relation to marriage at the bride's home ........ See the questions that TS raises

David

[LesleyB]

Thanks for that David.
Makes sense.

....but, in that case, another question spings to mind. (sorry, but hey, you'll get an article out of this yet ) I had always assumed, perhaps wrongly, that pre 1855 most marriages did take place in church. This one is not clear on the subject:

1811, James Davie and Susannah Guy both in this Parish gave in their names for proclamation in order to Banns and received Extracts.

but this one is (or so I thought...):

1823 Archibald McNicol residing in the Parish of Bonhill and Margaret McKenzie in this enrolled their names for proclamation to marriage. They being three several times proclaimed in two days and no objections offered were married here by the Rvd. R Story on 27th same month.

I took here to be the church? But was this unusual?

best wishes
Lesley

[DavidWW]

Thanks for that David.
Makes sense.

....but, in that case, another question spings to mind. (sorry, but hey, you'll get an article out of this yet ) I had always assumed, perhaps wrongly, that pre 1855 most marriages did take place in church. This one is not clear on the subject:

1811, James Davie and Susannah Guy both in this Parish gave in their names for proclamation in order to Banns and received Extracts.

but this one is (or so I thought...):

1823 Archibald McNicol residing in the Parish of Bonhill and Margaret McKenzie in this enrolled their names for proclamation to marriage. They being three several times proclaimed in two days and no objections offered were married here by the Rvd. R Story on 27th same month.

I took here to be the church? But was this unusual?

best wishes
Lesley

Article Me !!

In this context, my initial interpretation would be that here means "in this parish", not necessarily in the parish church, - in fact unlikely to have been the kirk itself, but I'd need to have a guid look at the OPR and kirk session records involved.......

The wording here is quite normal, and shouldn't be taken to mean that the marriage took place in the church itself.

David

[LesleyB]

Thanks David.

Just goes to show that we make assumptions sometimes without even being aware of it. I'd always assumed I suppose that as the church seemed to have been very central to life pre-1855 and because the marriages were recored by the church that the event itself must surely have taken place there. I hadn't imagined a big "do", just the couple themselves turning up to be married by the minister in the vestry or somesuch.

Interesting to find out that wasn't necessarily the case.

Best wishes
Lesley

[DavidWW]

Thanks David.

Just goes to show that we make assumptions sometimes without even being aware of it. I'd always assumed I suppose that as the church seemed to have been very central to life pre-1855 and because the marriages were recored by the church that the event itself must surely have taken place there. I hadn't imagined a big "do", just the couple themselves turning up to be married by the minister in the vestry or somesuch.

Interesting to find out that wasn't necessarily the case.

Best wishes
Lesley

Lesley

Nae prob!

This is why I'm such a strong advocate about learning about the really detailed process that led to the record that we see. OK, not everyone has the time to do the wide reading that's sometimes required, but there are people out there who write articles that summarise the situation , - the only problem can be getting as many published as would be desirable, as the UK magazines, perfectly understandably, concentrate on English themed material...........

Another common misunderstanding relates to the address of the groom and bride on a statutory marriage register entry being the same. Shock!, horror!, - does that mean that they were previosuly living in sin? Sometimes, perhaps, but most often it was a method of avoiding the necessity for double callings of the banns, along with the double costs and associated bureaucracry.

On the general subject, does anyone out there have a record of a situation where there was an objection following the proclamation of the banns?

And beyond that does anyone out there have a record of that same situation, but where the couple then went to the Sheriff Court to challenge and disprove the basis of the objection, which could, in the ultimate, lead to a Sheriff Officer accompanying the couple to the manse, and requiring the minster to marry the couple?

David

[joette]

I was talking to my Mum about this very subject yesterday.
She said that another reason for not marrying in Church was that you had to pay for the heating of the Building on that day.It was also considered getting a bit above your station.My Parents married in the Town Hall with the Minister marrying them as my Mum had relations who were Roman Catholic & would not have attended a Church Wedding-this was in 1950!!
I had friends who were married at home in 1982 so the tradition still lives on.
I too assumed that being married in the house or the manse was because the couple had jumped the gun & the Bride was pregnant(most of mine were anyway)
What particularly amused me was finding out this week that a GGrandparent who had raised merry hell when their son "jumped the gun" had in fact been married only 4 months when their eldest was born!!
Thanks for explaining about the same address-I had never considered that aspect of it just presumed that in 1824 they were living up the same close in Edinburgh.

[DavidWW]

One of the most intriguing situations I've ever come across - the details are probably here somewhere on TS, - is of a dental student marrying his fiancee by declaration, - no problem there surely?

Except that his father was a Free Kirk minister, and his uncle was high up in the Free Kirk College. Result?, - couple instructed to live apart as, in the eyes of the Kirk, they weren't married; and some months later they underwent a Free Kirk marriage.

The most interesting aspect was that there were two separate registrations, and, in the second one, both bride and groom were shown as unmarried, i,e, bachelor and spinster, since thay were just that in the eyes of the officiating Free Kirk minister, and it was, of course, the minister who filled in the marriage schedule that was then taken to the registrar who transcribed the details into the statutory register of marriages

David

[LesleyB]

Hi David
Thanks for all your input on this one. It does sound like quite an interesting subject for further investigations, though quite how you find out exactly where someone married if the OPR is economical with the information....? I take it you know of books on the subject?

as the UK magazines, perfectly understandably, concentrate on English themed material...........

They certainly do - it can be quite tiresome. Its the way the articles are written which very often seem to assume that they don't have to state its England they are writing about...and they mention systems and sources they are referring to as if these are relevant to the whole of the UK, which of course, in many cases, is complete and inaccurate nonsense. (hmm, you can't tell this cheeses me off, can you? )

The story you mention of the Free Church couple seems to have a few similarities to a situation in my tree. I think the post might be at:

http://talkingscot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=834

best wishes
Lesley

[DavidWW]

As a starter and it has a good bibliography as well - "National Index of Parish Registers Volume XII - Sources for Scottish Genealogy and Family History" by DJ Steel. Long since out of print, but normally a reading copy is available for peanuts on abebooks.com and the like, but a higher quality copy can cost a lot more. On top of that you need to read all the books that you can lay your hands on which deal with marriage and other customs.

That's my man in that thread !! Curious that it should involve you!

As for "English" magazines, all I will say more on the subject is Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr especially the very common assumptions that an English source is automatically a UK source and that the Scottish situation won't be any different.

I'm still looking forward to meeting the English expert, who in his short boxout on marriages up here, referred to the fact that most Scottish marriages involved a "hamfest". I think I know what he meant, but they don't

David