Irregular Marriage 1759.....

[trish1]

Having read about irregular marriages, I think I understand the concept but would be interested in why/how the following register would have come into existence.

Calender of irregular marriages in the South Leith kirk session records, 1697-1818 Marshall, James Scott

Within this calender on the IGI I found a marriage for my couple viz
ROBERT KILGOUR Spouse: ELIZABETH MAXWEL Marriage: 18 JUN 1759 South Leith, Midlothian, Scotland

This couple came from Fife - to where they returned some time after the baptism of their first child 10 Aug 1760 - as all further children were born/baptised Kirkcaldy and Abbotshall.

Any idea as to why an irregular marriage & why at Leith? Who kept the Kirk records of irregular marriages? How would my couple have had their marriage recorded?

Trish

[LesleyB]

Hi Trish

Any idea as to why an irregular marriage & why at Leith? Who kept the Kirk records of irregular marriages? How would my couple have had their marriage recorded?

South Leith was BIG on irregular marriages (parlty because it was a port)! Irregular marriages were popular for many reasons - one obvious one being if parents were not keen on the match. The irregular marriages were not marriages in the Kirk, that is why they are called irregular - a regular marriage was one performed by the minister of the kirk. Many couples married irregularly outsdide their own parish & Fife is just across the water from Leith with, in those days, regular daily passenger and goods sailings from Kinghorn to Leith.

The irregular marriage would turn up later in South Leith Kirk Session when it was discovered by the Kirk that this couple were living together as man & wife, and perhaps looking to have a baby christened, but had not been married properly in the eyes of the kirk - may well be some juicy details in the South Leith Kirk Session records of the circumstances!

Best wishes
Lesley
p.s. see also http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/tom.p ... rriage.htm

[David Lang]

I have irregular marriage in Partick in my line and can only think it is because the Groom is 54 and the Bride 19 !!!!!!

My Dad thinks this is hilarious and at 62 that his ship might not yet have sailed !!!!

[trish1]

Hi Lesley

Thanks for the information - If the marriage would turn up later in South Leith Kirk Session how would the date of same be decided? Would the couple state when they started cohabiting? or did they just select a date more than 12 months before the baptism of the first child. Was this child considered to be legitimate - or was there not such a term under Scottish law?

Where does one find the Kirk session records?

Hello David

We all have our problem ancestors

Trish

[LesleyB]

Hi Trish
Today just happens to be your lucky day.
I was heading for Edinburgh today anyway, and had another South Leith irregular marriage to look up - one of my own lot. So it was easy just to travel forward a few years and check yours out too. As pretty much expected, they are in a hurry to own up so that the first child can be christened!

ref is: CH2/716/27 page77 South Leith Kirk Session
24th July 1760
Compeared Robert Kilgour joyner in Caltown and own'd his irregular marriage w. Eliz. Maxwell now in child bed and produced the certificate thereof dated Edin. 18th June 1759 bearing yt they were then married signed by y. partys attested by Patr. Douglas as Minstr. and by Geo: Muir & Robert Neelie [not 100% sure of that surname] signing as witnesses. The woman having owned her marriage to session members residing in Caltown who examined her thereon at her own house. He was rebuked, exhorted & ordered to pay ye dues.

Thanks for the information - If the marriage would turn up later in South Leith Kirk Session how would the date of same be decided? Would the couple state when they started cohabiting? or did they just select a date more than 12 months before the baptism of the first child. Was this child considered to be legitimate - or was there not such a term under Scottish law?

Where does one find the Kirk session records?

So, they were married on 18th June 1759, and Robert confessed this to South Leith Kirk Session on 24th July 1760, just before the birth of their first child by the sound of things. The child was legitimate, and the folk of the day would not have minced their words if it had not been. There were many many children born illegitimate, and named as such in BIG letters on their birth entries, or earlier on, in the OPRs the child would have been said to have been "brought forth in fornication" or somesuch charming phrase!! This couple were legally married in 1759, just not married in the eyes of the Kirk, who like all Kirks of their day, attempted to keep a very tight hold on their parishoners and others who came into their parish!

The Kirk Session minutes are held at National Archives of Scotland in Edinburgh. It is possible to view the scanned pages on the PCs there.

Oh and "ye dues" were a fine which went into the poors funds.

Best wishes
Lesley

[trish1]

Thank you so much Lesley - If I manage to make the trek back to the UK it will be wonderful to see some of these documents that bring the family to life. No doubt they would have rathered that many of their events had stayed hidden in the Kirk Sessions.

(And their first child was christened on 10 August 1760)

If I can return the favour in Eastern Australia - do please ask.

Best Wishes for 2007

Trish

PS I am used to seeing "the bastard son of ..." in the English registers, but everything in Scotland seems so different I thought I had best ask. Obviously in regard to illegitimacy things were similar to England.

[LesleyB]

Hi Trish

I am used to seeing "the bastard son of ..." in the English registers, but everything in Scotland seems so different I thought I had best ask. Obviously in regard to illegitimacy things were similar to England.

I don't think that phrase is ever used in Scotland - or not that I've seen so far. I think its use is more typically English. Many things are different in Scotland - it is a different country, (a fact which seems to escape some folk entirely!) with its own history and laws even though to all intents and purposes there are obvious historical links and some similarities given that it lies next door to England. The Kirk in Scotland always had a much stronger hold on its parishoners than was ever achieved in England!! Not sure if that was a good thing though - you didnae get away wi' much and it was probably far more difficult to disappear after a "dirty deed" or crime in Scotland back then than it would be nowadays, believe it or not! The Kirk sessions had very effective communications links between each other and they spent, it seems, a lot of time and energy keeping tabs on folk.

Best wishes
Lesley

[LesleyB]

Forgot to add:
James Scott Marshall wrote several books on Leith, and it seems, from what you say. that he was responsible for collecting the irregular marriage data from the Kirk Session records.

[trish1]

Forgot to add:
James Scott Marshall wrote several books on Leith, and it seems, from what you say. that he was responsible for collecting the irregular marriage data from the Kirk Session records.

My source was from the IGI reference, so the Latter Day Saints must have used a copy of his book.

I have discovered, mainly via my family history some of the many differences between the countries in the UK. I find it of interest that when the immigrants came to Australia, there was very little marriage between the different groups. My mother was 3/4 of Scottish origins, but she seemed to break out - marrying my father who was half Irish and half English.

Many thanks for all the information

Trish

[DavidWW]

Thank you so much Lesley - If I manage to make the trek back to the UK it will be wonderful to see some of these documents that bring the family to life. No doubt they would have rathered that many of their events had stayed hidden in the Kirk Sessions.

...snipped.......

Trish

At some future point, but we're talking years not months, the digitised images of the kirk session records (those held in the CH2 and CH3 series) curently available at NAS in Edinburgh will come on line, most probably, the scottishdocuments.com site (there's already some examples there at http://www.scottishdocuments.com/examples.asp ), and then later transfer to scotlandspeople

PS I am used to seeing "the bastard son of ..." in the English registers, but everything in Scotland seems so different I thought I had best ask. Obviously in regard to illegitimacy things were similar to England.

In terms of the obvious reference to the illegitimacy in quite often very direct terms, yes, , but there is a major difference is Scots Law compared with English Law which is that, if the parents later married, always assuming that they were free to do so at the likely time of conception of the child or children, then the child or children were automatically legitimated (and retrospectively so, i.e. from the time of birth).

David

PS As well as the site mentioned by Lesley there's an excellent article by Leah Leneman and Rosalind Mitchison which can be found at http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;jsessioni ... 5001670205

dww