Same couple married twice 1914 & again 1915? Any thought

[LesleyB]

This one has puzzled me for a while...

Marriage 1(Irregular) : 1914 DICK, ANDREW S. & JOHNSTON, MARION, ST GILES MIDLOTHIAN 685/04 0847
Andrew S Dick (dental assistant, batchelor, 101 Bellevue Road, Edinburgh) married Marion Johnston (spinster, 21 Cargill Terrace) on 15th September 1914 at 53 George IV Bridge, Edinburgh by Declaration in presence of Gertrude Mary Cameron Law Clerkess and Margaret Thallon wife of a commercial traveller, Warrant of Sherrif-Substitute of the Lothians and Peebles.

Marriage 2: 1915 DICK, ANDREW STANLEY & JOHNSTON, MARION ST ANDREW MIDLOTHIAN 685/02 0125
Andrew Stanley Dick (dental assistant, batchelor, 101 Bellevue Road, Edinburgh) married Marion Johnston (spinster, 21 Cargill Terrace, Edinburgh) on 17th March 1915 at 32 Royal Circus, Edinburgh. (a property belonging to Andrew's brother, John G Dick, Dentist, a witness) , minister George Steven, after Publication according to the forms of the United Free Church of Scotland.

Does any body know why this would have been?
Andrew's mother's family were a staunch Free Church family from Fearn, Ross and Cromarty & Andrew's great uncle was the Principal of the Free Church College Edinburgh, James Duff McCulloch. My only thought is that family pressure to marry "in the eyes of the church" was brought to bear. But in that case I'm not sure why it was registered twice which seems very unusual - couldn't they just have had the civil marriage "blessed" at a later date?

Any suggestions welcome.

[DavidWW]

....snipped........Andrew's mother's family were a staunch Free Church family from Fearn, Ross and Cromarty & Andrew's great uncle was the Principal of the Free Church College Edinburgh, James Duff McCulloch. My only thought is that family pressure to marry "in the eyes of the church" was brought to bear. But in that case I'm not sure why it was registered twice which seems very unusual - couldn't they just have had the civil marriage "blessed" at a later date?

Any suggestions welcome.

You've near certainly given the correct explanation. A "staunch Free Kirk" family would disapprove very strictly of such a marriage by declaration to the point of not recognising it in the eyes of the Kirk, so that although, according to Scots Law they were perfectly married, they weren't !!

And as far as the Free Kirk was concerned there was therefore nothing to "bless" (I'm not even sure if such was possible in the Free Kirk) so they had to start from the beginning as far as the Kirk was concerned. As long as the registrar received a correctly filled out marriage schedule from the Rev George Steven, he wasn't in the least concerned that there was an earlier entry in a register in another district (if he even knew about it!!)

Davie

[LesleyB]

Hello Davie
Many thanks for your reply. Pretty much as I suspected but good to have a second opinion on it.

I'm just surprised they "got away with" declaring themselves to be a batchelor and a spinster when legally they weren't.

...although I suppose they could hardly have declared themsleves as married either!!

Best wishes
Lesley

[DavidWW]

Hello Davie
Many thanks for your reply. Pretty much as I suspected but good to have a second opinion on it.

I'm just surprised they "got away with" declaring themselves to be a batchelor and a spinster when legally they weren't.

...although I suppose they could hardly have declared themsleves as married either!!

Best wishes
Lesley

But they never declared themselves as bachelor and spinster to the registrar this "second time around" !!

Process was that the minister filled in a marriage schedule at the ceremony, said schedule then delivered to the registrar who transcribed the info from the schedule into the marriage register, and it wasn't for the registrar to second guess the meenister.

Now, as far as the meenister was concerned they were not married and if they had been cohabiting were living in sin at the gravest risk to their immortal souls , as the Kirk believed that it's own law was superior and supreme to Scots Law in this instance, so that the previous irregular "marriage" was quite simply illegal in the eyes of the Kirk whatever Scots Law might have to say about the process of the Sheriff Court declaration and presentation of the subsequent Warrant to the registrar resulting in the first marriage register entry.......

Given the pressure that was presumably put on the couple to "regularise" their position it's not unsurprising that they gave in and went through the church marriage. It's near certain that they had to appear in front of the Kirk Session and admit their guilt, possibly even in front of the whole congregation (well worth seeing if there are extant and accessible Kirk Session minutes from that time....), and part at least of the interval between the two marriages may well have been due to their having to live apart for a certain period before the Free Kirk would even consider permitting them to be married by the church.

Davie

PS "Andrew's great uncle was the Principal of the Free Church College Edinburgh", - and that, as like as not, had a lot to do with the situation
dww