MARRIAGES SCOTLAND history-3 ways of forming a legal marriage without banns or a minister being present.

Question

How can we mark people not married just because there is no ceremony?

How can we mark pre most marriages in Scotland as certain uncertain (they could be so much better used -sourced-unsourced or primary source-publication etc etc) when we have no idea if or when they were married by Scottish law--Family search call banns marriages and people mark that certain. Then your committed to have to make a choice certain uncertain---considering the law it then should always be uncertain.

MARRIAGES SCOTLAND history-3 ways of forming a legal marriage without banns or a minister being present.

*A couple were legally married if they declared themselves to be so in front of witnesses, regardless of whether this was followed by a sexual connection. Marriage contracted in this way without witnesses was also legal, but much harder to prove in court unless there was other evidence, such as letters that confirmed what the couple had done.

*A promise of marriage, followed by a sexual relationship, was regarded as a legal marriage - but this had to be backed up by some kind of proof, such as a written promise of marriage, or an oath sworn before witnesses.

*Marriages 'by habit and repute' were also legal if a couple usually presented themselves in public as husband and wife, even if no formal declaration of marriage was made.

Before 1929, Scots law followed Roman law in allowing a girl to marry at twelve years of age and a boy at fourteen, without any requirement for parental consent. However, according to one early 20th-century source*, marriage in Scotland at such young ages was in practice almost unknown.

Runaway marriages to Scotland, particularly Greta Green and other border towns, by young English couples seeking to avoid the need for parental consent for their marriage and to take advantage of the more flexible and informal marriage laws.

ALSO

1855-1919 an illegitimate child’s birth was If the parents subsequently married, the child was legitimised under Scots law provided the parents were free to marry at the time of the birth. ( I have also seen this was the case in Belgium so probably also some other countries)

see

https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/research/economicsocialhistory/projects/scottishwayofbirthanddeath/marriage/

Comments

Gretna Green

Before the first two ways the couple generally performed a handfasting which they could do alone or with witnesses.

---

Do you have a source for this??

---

https://www.gretnagreen.com/why-flee-to-gretna-green-a739

I have a Gretna Green marriage in my family. 

---

Not on me, no. My family has their oral history,  along with a few faded written in Bible notations.. I'll make certain to have fact links before commenting from here in.

The reason I said Gretna Green is because previous commenter misspelled it as "Greta Green". It had nothing to do with my remarks about handfasting.

---

No facts --needed to comment. I just wondered if you had one as I would have liked to have had it---is why I asked. The spelling error was not mine (although easily could have been--since English is not my everyday language) it came from the source that I quoted.

Answer 1

In Ireland you could claim marriage in front of witnesses for 1 year and after that time decide if you wanted to continue or not.  I am not sure if that happened in Scotland as well, do you know?

Comments

A year and a day.

---

IRELAND-

A fashionable marriage of the time was the hand-fast marriage that lasted for one year and a day, a sort of trial marriage. If either party did not want to stay together, the day after their first anniversary they could be released from their vow. This would all change by the late sixteenth century, with the death of Queen Elizabeth I, the completed Reformation and surrender of the last Gaelic chieftains. Replacing Brehon law with Canon law was one of the first things the English did to gain control over the Irish.

---

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handfasting also in early Scotland and England

---

Replacing Brehon law with Canon law was one of the 

worst things to have ever happened.   

Answer 2

On the French side, at least in New France, banns were not considered a marriage as such, they very often are dispensed with entirely ''for just cause'' or because nobody can have any valid reason to object, happens a lot with Filles du Roy, they have just arrived so are unknown, nobody can prove any objection.

There are also marriage contracts galore, but they by themselves were not considered a marriage, some Filles du Roy made 2 or 3 contracts before finally settling on a final choice.  Sometimes the marriage record itself is lost, and we only have the contract, so we go with that for a date.

And finally there is what is known as Mariage à la gaumine (sorry, this one's in French, didn't find the related English one if it exists).  This is when a couple would declare themselves as married before witnesses on church premises, without benefit of clerical benediction.  There appears to have been an extension of the definition whereby Protestants doing this before a Catholic priest would be considered married despite his not giving nuptial benediction.

Mariage à la gaumine was challenged in a couple of cases I know of, mainly due to the parties being underage at the time (25 yo majority).  The Catholic church was against these marriages.

Answer 3

My maternal grandparents were married in Scotland in the early 1920s by Sheriff’s Warrant.  They were different religions but my grandmother converted after the marriage.  Their marriage is documented.

Answer 4

I have heard about "A Bridge Marriage" were the couple stand on a Bridge to declare themselves married in front of 2 witnesses.

Answer 5

The problem with most of the forms of marriage described in Scotland - especially any sort of trial marriage - is that no evidence will exist, unless it was subsequently declared either in a parish church or at some court hearing, such as a will.  A distant ancestor of mine was called to appear before the kirk elders at Glendevon, with his ladyfriend, to face an accusation of 'fornication'; he refused to appear, but his lady did so and confessed her sin. The kirk records later recorded that the couple were deemed to be married. In later years my ancestor served as an Elder of the Kirk, so clearly was not stigmatised by these events....