Help with Interpretation: 1801 OPR Marriage

[Stiu_MacBriain]

Hello there,

I'm looking for someone to help me interperet this 1801 OPR Marriage record. I'm typically quite good at this, however there are a few key terms in here that I cannot decypher.

Any help, opinions, or interpretations would be much appreciated!

My interpretation is as follows:

"April 11 John Hairstones soldier in the 11th Regt. of __?______ and Margaret Peden of this parish completed (?) the ____ and had then _____ marriage dated _____ 1801 Conformed ________________ presence of the ______."

This marriage was in Dalkeith, outside of Edinburgh. Margaret was from this parish, however John was not. The family later relocated to the Troquee/Maxwelltown area, probably where John was originally from.

Thanks!

[SarahND]

Hello Stiu and

I don't have all the answers, but can add a few words to the effort:

"April [?] John Hairstones soldier in the 11th [4th?] Regt. of N B Militia and Margaret Peden in this parish compd [compeared] before the Session and had their preqt marriage dated _____ 1801 Conformed (confirmed?) ___________ the sd. ? Nathan Scott Ahnnler (?) here in presence of the Session"

All the best,
Sarah

[Stiu_MacBriain]

Hello Sarah, thanks for the welcome!

Any idea on what the N B Militia could be? N D might make sense, as there was an 11th Regt. (North Devonshire). However, I doubt J. Hairstones (morphed eventually into Hairstens) was originally from Devon...

North Berwick?

[Stiu_MacBriain]

I seem to be finding NB Militia related to the Edinburgh Regts of Militia. This sounds right? EdiNBurgh?

It would make sense, having been married in Dalkeith, just outside of Edinburgh...

[Stiu_MacBriain]

Sorry for the multiple responses, but I think it stands for "North Britain". As we know, Scotland, through various periods of history, was known as North Britain.

The timeline makes sense. I'll try to dig up info on the 11th or 4th Regt. of North British Milita.

[Russell]

My take on it was like Sarah's
"April [?] John Hairstones soldier in the 11th [4th?] Regt. of (N B)[not sure about this] Militia and Margaret Peden in this parish compd [compeared] before the Session and had their irreg(ular) marriage dated 8 ------ 1801 Conformed by the Rev ..?. William Scott Minister here in presence of the Session"

This shows that John and Margaret had an irregular marriage i.e. not approved by the Established Church of Scotland and were obliged or required (compeared) to appear before the Kirk Session who extracted a promise from them that in future they would be good, well-behaved citizens and would follow the required Established Church conventions. The now regularised marriage was then entered in the Kirk Session minutes. They were lucky as no fines or penalties were imposed.
Irregular marriages were quite common in Edinburgh around this time and there were fisherfolk travelled over from Fife to get married by either a Seccessionist minister or more frequently a charlatan who set up what was, in effect, a marriage bureau since anyone could record that a promise (contract) had been made between a couple. Scots Law accepted this as a legal marriage and it was the Established Church which deemed it Irregular.
If you posted the full page of the OPR it might be possible to compare other entries for date entries and what I think is a first initial in the Ministers name.

Russell

[Stiu_MacBriain]

Thanks for the informative response. Very interesting!

What's your opinion on the nature of the "irregularity", if I may ask. Based on your experience even.

Would one member likely be of a different denomination? Or be a criminal? Perhaps they had a child out of wedlock?

Cheers,
Stuart

[Russell]

Hi Stuart

The OPR entry is remarkably bland There would have been some sort of catechism if either of then had been of a different religion. If they had a child questions would have asked about the length of time the child was carried with the express purpose of accusing them of ante-nuptual fornication or some other behaviour. (Kirk Session Minutes are full of prurient questioning ) If there had been questionable circumstances some mention of them would have been recorded.
Sometimes there is no apparent reason why a couple step away from the usual marriage procedures. One reason might be family disapproval of the intended partner.

Russell

[trish1]

Thanks for the informative response. Very interesting!

What's your opinion on the nature of the "irregularity", if I may ask. Based on your experience even.

Would one member likely be of a different denomination? Or be a criminal? Perhaps they had a child out of wedlock?

Cheers,
Stuart

This is such a marriage from my family tree Stuart - presumably someone told church members that Elizabeth was "in child bed"

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 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.

I've found it only in Scotland - rather than force illegitimacy on the child, the "irregular" marriage is allowed, seems like the best solution for everyone

Trish

[Russell]

Hi Trish and Stuart
Marriage in Scotland was a contract providing the parties involved were of legal age to establish a contract. It could be verbal without witnesses; formal before a minister; informal, which could be dis-established minister or a couple only needed to establish themselves as husband and wife and live as such to be considered married. A child born to any of these would be considered legitimate. A child born before the couple were actually married would bring disapproval on the couple but would be legitimised as soon as they got married. After 1855 (When formal registration of a Birth was made law) A Register of Corrected Entry [RCE] would be made on the birth certificate to indicate this if requested by the parents.
It's a fascinating area of Scots Law which differs considerably from the law in other parts of the U.K.
The example you gave Trish shows that the Kirk Session "rebuked" him as well as visiting his spouse at home to get her take on things. Stuart's entry has no additional information on why it was an irregular marriage and there is no disapproval and condemnation in the Kirk Session entry.
There is a fascinating book by Leah Leneman "Promises, Promises" printed in 2003; ISBN 1-901663-52-3 which looks at marriage over the centuries in Scotland.

Russell