Kinglassie OPR

[tireetam]

Hi

I have a Kinglassie, Fife OPR marriage 19 Feb 1808 - "Proclaim W Martin El Anderson 5/-"

Fair enough but at the foot of the page it says - "The preceding twelve entries are extracted from the Sessional Register of Kinglassie in the custody of the Session clerk in terms of the Acts" And it is signed Mr Pitt Dundee, Register General.

Btw the twelve marriages are in the period 1788 to 1813.

Is this enforcing session clerks to give up info after the 1854 Act? Or is this merely names of those that were scored off the OPRs following the disruption?

All thoughts and informed opinions gratefully received.

KRs

Tam

[AndrewP]

Hi Tam,

The post of Registrar General did not exist until 1854 (in preparation for the start of statutory registration in 1855). The disruption was in 1843. So it sounds like the Sessional Register (Kirk Session records) contained records were not in the Parochial Registers (later known as the OPRs), and that these were taken from the Kirk Session records and put in with the OPRs when the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1854 called for such records to be submitted to the General Register Office for Scotland in 1855.

William Pitt Dundas was Registrar General from 12-Sep-1854 to 28-Apr-1880 and 17-Nov-1880 to 12-Jan-1881. See http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/history.pdf for more info.

All the best,

AndrewP

[tireetam]

these were taken from the Kirk Session records and put in with the OPRs

Thanks Andrew

It would seem that what you say is a definite probability.

But clearly all marriages for this Parish were not recorded in that way. The OPRs seem to consist of a series of wee books. With each one recording less information that its predecessor. I wonder if the twelve couples listed were put under pressure to marry, hence the entry in the Kirk Session records which judging by other Parishes consist of a hit list of sinners and debauchery. (C'way the debauchers!)

I came across one list of births where selected entries had been aggressively scored through. Again the dates did not match the disruption. Maybe its a Fife thing, never researched Fife fae Fifers afore.

Thanks again for your help.

[LesleyB]

Hi Tam

Or is this merely names of those that were scored off the OPRs following the disruption?

I have not ever seen this done. Even if people left the established church to join other churches, the entries in the OPR would not be "scored off" as these events (births, marriages) had still taken place in the established church, no matter what church the person(s) concerned now belonged to. The only time I have ever seen names removed from a list of church members was in a "communion" list of parishoners, with those who had moved away from the area marked as such, presumably so that the elders did not waste time trying to deliver communion tokens to these folk.

I wonder if the twelve couples listed were put under pressure to marry, hence the entry in the Kirk Session records which judging by other Parishes consist of a hit list of sinners and debauchery.

As far as I have seen some of the Session books do contain marriages, but not all marriages mentioned in the Kirk session books are the result of irregular marriages, formication cases or etc. Some parishes do not seem to have had separate books in some periods and some seem to have been a bit disorganised at times; maybe the session clerk was off ill at the time and events were noted on the nearest item to hand. Maybe the session clerk had left or died and they had not yet found a replacement. Maybe they needed a new book for the OPRs and did not have the funds or perhaps the time to get that organised immediately, maybe the book in which events were normally recorded was temporarily missing or known to be elsewhere ...there are lots of reasons which may or may not be a reason!

I came across one list of births where selected entries had been aggressively scored through. Again the dates did not match the disruption. Maybe its a Fife thing, never researched Fife fae Fifers afore.

Could be due to duplication of the same entries elsewhere, or the result of more that one person keeping the records and a slight disagreement about how/where the entries are to be made..of lots of other reasons I'm sure!

Best wishes
Lesley
(a Fifer)

[tireetam]

Why thank you LesleyB for your considered insight. I apologise for the delay in responding as I have been out and about making the best of the Ayrshire sunshine.

Can I categorically say I meant no insult to Fife or Fifers when I suggested there may have been something awry with Fife Churches and there bookkeeping. But you seem to confirm that the records have been a mess and some solid clerk was setting matters straight. Once again this is a definite probable.

When I mentioned disruption I was thinking generally of nonconformity and not specifically of the 1843 sort. However I have read that certain Churches and Elders did delete those who left but I cant remember where. I just had a quick look at Bruce Drurie's inspirational "Scottish Genealogy" as I thought that a likely source of my impression but it is not mentioned there.

I'll away and think about it.

KRs

Tam