RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Lanarkshire => Topic started by: chalfontcrew on Sunday 15 January 06 13:19 GMT (UK)
-
Hi
I have just got a copy of a marriage certificate for December 1870, the marriage venue and the usual residence for the bride and groom are all given as 478 St Vincent Street, Glasgow.
I have come across the bride and groom having the same residence before but not the same as the marriage venue, surely this must be a mistake does any one have any local knowledge of this area?
The other couple on the extract were married at 43 St Vincent Crescent, Glasgow, should this be the venue address on my marriage?
Any thoughts on this would be great.
Caz
-
Under Scots law (until very recently) a marriage could take place anywhere providing an official minister of the church took the service.... so weddings in the home address of one (or more) of the parties involved were not unusual.
Its also possible that at that time 478 St Vincent Street was a tenement block (apartment block) which could hold 6,8 or 10 different families - all would have the same address but living seperately.
-
I've just had a look at an old Ordnance survey map from 1890 at
http://www.nls.uk/digitallibrary/map/townplans/glasgow_2_centre.html
which shows that the buildings at that end of St Vincent Street were all domestic dwellings and by the look of them - tenements .... its very likely that this was also the case in the 1870's
-
Hi
Thanks for the replies.
I see there is a church at 265 St Vincent Street.
I will have to do some more investigating.
Caz
-
There are (or were) a number of churches in St Vincent Street and more nearby ... I have found that marriages at home were far more common than one might have believed nowadays. ..... as well as the tenement theory as both parties have given the same address its possible that they have lived together in what was known as "common law marriage" and decided to make things "legal".
Until the 1940's Scots law recognised several forms of irregular marriages plus because of the law a minister of the church could perform a marriage in any place he deemed fit for the purpose. (civil ceremonies have only recently been extended in this way in the last few years)
-
Thanks again Falkyrn
I think you may be right.
Caz
-
I had the same situation, with both participants and the marriage taking place round the corner, at 435 Sauchiehall Street. However, the DIGROS marriage record makes an intersting contribution, stating that the couple were married by Sheriff's Warrant, which confirms you could marry anywhere you liked, providing you had a warrant from the Court to aurhorise it.
-
I think that this is the case.
-
I think you will find that most of the addresses given on the "by declaration" marriages are solicitors' offices. I believe that is where the declaration was made and witnessed before the paperwork went before the Sheriff-Substitute. That is why the same address can come up regularly for couples of no apparent connection.
The Glasgow and Edinburgh "by declaration" marriages appear dominantly in the registration districts closest to the courts - where most of the solicitors are to be found - in Blythswood, Glasgow and St Giles, Edinburgh.
ADP
-
In my particular example, the address was also given as their place of residence, so that might rule out a Solicitor's office - but I can see the sense of it. Incidentally, Blytheswood wasn't particularly near any court/s (The Sheriff Court) was way down at the bottom of the hill in Ingram Street (Lanarkshire House), before moving a tad further up the street with more courts and a bespoke building!
-
I have another Glasgow marriage were the newspaper report give the marriage address as Sherriffs Office, Ingram Street but the marriage certificate says 136 Buchanan Street, I think someone told me the office was on the corner.
-
The two locations are around 500m apart, unless after 1920, then it would be 750m. Buchanan Street is largely pedestrianised now, but the address you give is quite a way up the hill and more likeley to be a Solicitor's office(or other marriage location) than an office of the Court - but at the end of the day, at least the records do exist! <g>
-
I dont know if this is the same as yours but it may shed some light.
My grandmother married in 1908 to her first husband a sailor at her home address by sherriffs warrent I didnt understand this but I've now learnt apparently a justice would visit the home of person to be married and would announce them wed
they would then take certificate to regestary office and pay for it to be registered but sometimes people couldnt afford to pay the fee so didnt bother with registration. I hope this helps.
Izzy
-
Thanks Izzy and Okonski,
I think my first couple were married at home at 478 Vincent Street in 1870.
My second couple got a warrant in Ingrams Street then got married at 136 Buchanan Street, I typed the address into google and it came up with with a coffee bar called Esquires, looking at the picture I am guessing that it was a solicitors office in 1938 not a private home.
-
Here is the list of "by declaration" marriage addresses from my family tree. Some have been used twice, and none are family residences that I know of.
51 Bath Street, Glasgow (Blythswood)
162 Bath Sreet, Glasgow (Blythswood)
90½ Great Hamilton Street, Glasgow (Calton)
21 Hope Street, Glasgow (Blythswood)
19 Howard Street, Glasgow (Blythswood)
19 Howard Street, Glasgow (Blythswood)
36 Montrose Street, Glasgow (Blythswood)
435 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow (Anderston)
50 Wellington Street, Glasgow (Blythswood)
52 West Nile Street, Glasgow (Blythswood)
4 Bank Street, Edinburgh (St Giles)
34 Chambers Street, Edinburgh (St Giles)
3 Cockburn Street, Edinburgh (St Giles)
9 George IV Bridge, Edinburgh (St Giles)
35 George IV Bridge, Edinburgh (St Giles)
53 George IV Bridge, Edinburgh (St Giles)
53 George IV Bridge, Edinburgh (St Giles)
1 India Buildings, Edinburgh (St Giles)
63 York Place, Edinburgh (St Andrew)
The 435 Sauchiehall Street address was also given by one of the contributors further up this thread of messages.
Apart from York Place, all of the Edinburgh addresses are within a short distance of the Sheriff Court. York Place is made up of substantial Georgian townhouses, and so it is quite feasible to have housed solicitors' offices. Can anyone comment on the Glasgow addresses in that regard?
ADP
-
The Glasgow addresses are fairly spread about and in a mix of areas
Bath Street addresses are quite far apart in the street with 51 being nearer the city centre its possible that these were offices/homes
21 Hope street is at the bottom end of the street and while it is now primarily a business address at that time it would have been a tenement building
(the same goes for 19 Howard Street)
The other possibility is that some of these could have been meeting houses for different groups (e.g. Salvation Army)
-
Absolutely - all the Glasgow addresses you gave are in commercial properties and housed (and some still do) legal practices, so I think it fair to assume that it was an expedience, for the warrant rather than any real domicile of the participants in marriage.
-
I think this is another one ..
7, Bridgegate, Glasgow (Blythswood)
My grandparents were married here by Declaration and Warrant of Sheriff's Substitute of Lanarkshire.
A quick search on 7, Bridgegate showed other people's trees where they had family that married there.
regards,
Lindsay
-
The Glasgow addresses are fairly spread about and in a mix of areas
Bath Street addresses are quite far apart in the street with 51 being nearer the city centre its possible that these were offices/homes
21 Hope street is at the bottom end of the street and while it is now primarily a business address at that time it would have been a tenement building
(the same goes for 19 Howard Street)
The other possibility is that some of these could have been meeting houses for different groups (e.g. Salvation Army)
Have to disagree slightly. None of the streets mentioned were high density housing, and the Post Office directory of the time lists commercial names at a ratio of 3/1 for these streets. I seriously doubt that the 'bottom end of Hope Street' was residential as by that time the buildings were new, to complement the arrival of the Railway Station (from over the river).
-
The maps and valuation rolls of the period show that area to be a mix of domestic and business properties without the seperation that we expect today.
21 Hope street was a workshop,warehouse and offices for various grain and iron merchants with one dwelling for the caretaker.
Plus and this is probably the main one as far as this topic goes ... the office of Robert Watson - Writer - (a writer is one who specialises in contracts)
-
Writer will be "Writer to the Signet" - a solicitor. "Writer", or abbreviation "WS" is quite commonly found on documents.
ADP
-
http://www.cba-qs.com/projects/housing_print.html
shows a Project for Refurbishment of 478-496 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow by Sandyford Housing Association, maybe they might have some info on the former use of the building?
Lindsay
-
A 'writer' is indeed one of the tasks of a solicitor's office - not necessarily a 'writer to the signet' - usually denoted as 'WS', which is a law library in Edinburgh. It does appear that these 'Warrant' marriages, by and large are/were performed in commercial properties, usually solicitor's offices.
Regarding 473 St Vincent Street, I recall this area in the 1950's, and it is a red sandstone property (a standard tenement). Once St.V crosses North Street (where the M8 now passes) commercial properties gave way to high density housing, usually with shops/pubs on the ground floor front, with 2 room houses to the rear ground, and 4 room houses on the upper floors.
-
My grandmother married in 1908 to her first husband a sailor at her home address by sherriffs warrent I didnt understand this but I've now learnt apparently a justice would visit the home of person to be married and would announce them wed
they would then take certificate to regestary office and pay for it to be registered but sometimes people couldnt afford to pay the fee so didnt bother with registration. I hope this helps.
Not always quite like this. The marriage was legal if you declared yourselves to be married in front of two witnesses, it didn't matter where. There was no requirement for anyone else to be present.
Then you had to register the marriage, and to do that you had to get a warrant from the sheriff, who would take a statement from the witnesses to the effect that yes, they had seen and heard you declare yourselves married.
After 1855 it wasn't a case of not being able to afford to register. You were legally obliged to register a marriage, whether by a minister or by declaration.
HTH
Forfarian
-
Many of my relatives have the same address listed for their marriages. Apparently it cost more to get married if the couple gave separate addresses so most got round it by giving the same address.
-
have you tried the mitchell library in glasgow they hold everything for scotland in there http://www.mitchelllibrary.org/vm/
The Mitchell
North Street
Glasgow
G3 7DN
Phone: 0141 287 2999 or 2876
Fax: 0141 287 2815
E-mail: lil@cls.glasgow.gov.uk
Opening Hours
Monday-Thursday
9am-8pm
Friday, Saturday
9am-5pm
http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/Leisure_Culture/Libraries/Librarylocations/themitchell.htm
try this i hope you get what you are looking for
-
have you tried the mitchell library in glasgow they hold everything for scotland in there
Sorry, but this is not the case. The Mitchell Library is an excellent resource for family history in the Glasgow area, but it does not hold any birth, marriage or death certificates, and it holds census and parish register microfilms only for the counties surrounding Glasgow.
Having said that, it does indeed hold very nearly everything (except BMD certificates) for Glasgow. In particular it holds a huge stock of directories, electoral registers and valuation rolls for the city so it would indeed be an excellent place to try for an answer to the original question.
-
Apparently it cost more to get married if the couple gave separate addresses so most got round it by giving the same address.
This is news to me. What is your source for this information?
-
sorry for the wrong information then . but the mitchell libary is a good place for somethings then and for the rest you would have to go to edinburgh to new register house EH1 3YT tel= 0131-314-4433 when i said the mitchell libary i ment to say it is good if you are looking for street names in and around glasgow.. new register house it is £17.50 for all day or after 1 oclock it is £10.00 but you have to be there for 12.30pm just to make that you get a place
-
... The marriage was legal if you declared yourselves to be married in front of two witnesses, it didn't matter where. There was no requirement for anyone else to be present.
Then you had to register the marriage, and to do that you had to get a warrant from the sheriff, who would take a statement from the witnesses to the effect that yes, they had seen and heard you declare yourselves married.
After 1855 it wasn't a case of not being able to afford to register. You were legally obliged to register a marriage, whether by a minister or by declaration. ...
Forfarian, I regret having to disagree but my understanding (and I did research this some time back) is that there was no requirement for marriages by declaration to be registered and therefore no requirement for a Warrant of Sheriff (Substitute) to be obtained - and, indeed, no requirement for there even to be witnesses present to a declaration of marriage for such to be legal under Scots Law (marriage being regarded as a matter of mutual consent between two individuals).
However, once Statutory Registration was introduced in Scotland in 1855, there is no question but that many (though far far from all) couples who wished to marry (or who had already married) 'without the benefit of clergy' also wanted to have a formal piece of paper to prove that they were married.
But such a couple could only have their marriage formally registered in the Statutory Registers (which was not compulsory) if they could prove to the Registrar that they actually had married each other e.g. by declaration. The standard mechanism for this was
(a) to obtain a formal Warrant of Sheriff Substitute (i.e. documentary proof that the Sheriff Substitute accepted that the couple had married each other - naturally the Sheriff Substitute would want a couple of witnesses to attest to that fact before granting the Warrant), and
(b) then to take the Warrant along to the Registrar and have the marriage registered.
This could be done promptly, or within a specified time period, or with special dispensation or court proceedings well after the event. But the marriage remained legal whether or not it had received a Warrant of Sheriff Substitute and whether or not it had been registered, and there was no requirement for either.
This state of affairs continued until the Marriage (Scotland) Act, 1939 came into effect in July 1940 - it introduced formal provision for Civil Marriage.
Of course for decades before this people in Scotland wanted something which was effectively the equivalent of the English Registry Office marriage of the time; so people almost got around the letter of the law by a standard procedure of the declaration being made in front of two witnesses often in a solicitor's office or even in the office of the Sheriff Substitute using a pro forma often produced by the Sheriff's office, the Sheriff Substitute then immediately issuing them with his Warrant, and then the couple promptly high-tailing it to the (often nearby) Registrar's Office and getting their marriage registered and receiving a marriage certificate (and perhaps they then went out for tea and cakes - or something stronger - to celebrate!)
The major drawback to all this from a genealogical point of view is that the marriage certificate
(a) bears a reference to the Warrant of Sheriff Substitute, and
(b) bears the legend that it was an Irregular Marriage.
Of course there was nothing whatsoever 'irregular' about the marriage in any normal sense of the word. That was a hangover from the church which regarded any marriage which its ministers didn't perform as 'irregular'. Indeed it is my understanding that the reason why civil marriage was not introduced until so very very late in Scotland was due to continued opposition from the church - and that this was even part of the reason for the delayed introduction of Statutory Registration in Scotland (1855 cf 1837 in England & Wales) which finally got through for 1855 only after proposed provisions for civil marriage had been removed from the legislation.
The words 'Irregular Marriage' and the reference to 'Warrant of Sheriff Substitute' have misled many family historians into thinking that there was something suspect about such a marriage. This was not the case - they were normal, proper, commonplace everyday events.
I post this only because there are many misconceptions about marriages by declaration, Irregular Marriages, and Warrants of Sheriff Substitute so it is important to try to get the facts as accurate as possible.
If anyone believes that I have erred in the (admittedly over-simplified) statements above I stand ready and willing to be corrected.
JAP