RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Topic started by: KitHannay on Saturday 21 January 23 16:44 GMT (UK)
-
Hi all,
I recently found my great-great-grandmother Rose Ann Hannah in the 1921 Census as 'Rose Ann O'Reilly.' She was living with her 'husband' John O'Reilly, from Cavan, in Blythswood, Glasgow. However, I know they didn't get married until 1923 - so why would they have registered themselves as husband and wife in the 1921 Census?
They weren't young - although Rose says she was 39 in 1921, I know she was actually 43. And John was 38 (correct age in the census). Rose had been married to an English soldier previously - they married when she was 17 in 1895 and had three known children together (one died, and I cannot find any info on the other two after the 1901 Census). She then had my great-grandfather in Belfast, NI in 1905 (he was 'found wandering' and placed in an orphanage by the authorities - he never knew his mother). His father was not known. I've posted about this before in RootsChat.
John was also married before, to a woman named Elizabeth Reilly - although I'm not sure when she died (I can't find them in 1911).
I'm wondering why Rose and John stated they were married in the 1921 Census - any ideas?
-
I think they could state what they wanted, I am sure they won't be the only couple stating they are husband and wife on any census, my gt grandmother and gt grandfather did the same and never married even though they produced at least 9 children together and others with a previous husband who she never divorced
LM
-
Facts were fairly elusive when it came to officialdom if my family is anything to go by.
-
Another reason why a couple lived together as man and wife but were not married can be due to the fact that a previous spouse for one of them could have still been alive.
Monica
-
It's interesting you say that Monica, because I can't find a death cert for either Rose's 1st husband or John's 1st wife. Rose's husband William Houghton, I assume, died between 1901-1904. He was in the army. John's wife was called Elizabeth Reilly but I was unable to find him in any census records before 1921 so I'm not sure when or where she died.
-
It is something that you may've come across in other countries whereby a couple living together have the same rights as man and wife i.e. 50% split etc. Here's a bit of a brief on the way in which it worked in Scotland up until 1939.
https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/article/irregular-marriage-and-kirk-session-scotland (https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/article/irregular-marriage-and-kirk-session-scotland)
Cheers
Corey
Edit: in case the link breaks down the line:
"Introduction
“The law of Scotland as to marriage was this – it adopted the principle that consent alone made marriage… The law of Scotland did not require the presence of a priest, nor the intervention of any religious ceremony. The law of Scotland considered marriage to be a civil contract, but it did not provide any particular mode by which that contract was to be proved” – Hansard, discussion on bill, Registration of Births and Marriages (Scotland) Bill August 1848.
The recent release of National Records of Scotland’s (NRS) kirk session minutes on ScotlandsPeople, affords the chance to examine these forms of marriage, the impact it could have on people’s lives and how it was recorded by the Church of Scotland.
The laws of marriage were quite different in England and Scotland. In Scotland, marriage was based on the principles of mutual consent and both ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’ marriages were recognised by law. Regular marriages were those performed by the clergy after the publication of banns. There were three forms of irregular marriage in Scotland:
1. Per verba de praesenti – A present exchange of consent by words by both parties to be married, privately or informally given, to be man and wife. Ideally this exchange would be performed in front of witnesses; a marriage contract without was still legal but much more difficult to prove.
2. Per verba de futuro subsequente copula – A promise of future marriage without a present exchange of consent, ‘followed at a subsequent time by carnal intercourse’.
3. Marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute. Generally this meant a couple living together and publicly behaving as though they are man and wife. This could include being affectionate, and referring to each other as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. Also known as a ‘common law’ marriage, this was not so much a form of marriage, but a separate type of evidence which could be used to establish that a marriage had taken place. If a couple had lived and presented themselves as married for an extended period of time, there was a presumption that there had been a previous exchange of consent.
Irregular marriages remained valid until 1939 because the Scots held to the simple doctrine that any two unmarried people of lawful age (until 1929 12 for a girl, 14 for a boy) that wished to get married, if they were physically capable and not within the prohibited degrees of kinship, ‘and they both freely expressed this wish and freely accepted each other in marriage, then they were married’ (T. C. Smout). Consent made the marriage, not the clergy nor the civil official, and there were no restrictions on where and when the marriage might take place, nor a requirement that witnesses be present to prove its validity."
-
I'm wondering why Rose and John stated they were married in the 1921 Census - any ideas?
There was nothing to prevent them stating they were living as 'husband & wife', called 'Common Law' in Scotland.
Annie
-
Basic question would be who filled in the census, them a child or the census collector?
If the census collectot was known to them they might not wanted tp enlighten him to their exact status -- same with a child 00 if not known someone saying wife's name would ellicit the name but not the exact relationship. I assume the forms of the time did not have a box to tick for defacto.
Also no legal documents needed to be provided for a census.
Regards
phenolphthalein
pH
-
I'm wondering why Rose and John stated they were married in the 1921 Census - any ideas?
The obvious answer is because they weren't telling the truth.
-
I'm wondering why Rose and John stated they were married in the 1921 Census - any ideas?
Do you have a pic stating when they are married? Is this something that FindMypast have added? I have found some relatives where the 1939 Register would show Maiden Name and Married name on the record. But I know that they married POST 1939
-
I have found some relatives where the 1939 Register would show Maiden Name and Married name on the record. But I know that they married POST 1939
As I understand it married names were routinely added to the 1939 Register as and when the people affected subsequently got married. But I don't know when this stopped, or why it was done.
-
I have found some relatives where the 1939 Register would show Maiden Name and Married name on the record. But I know that they married POST 1939
As I understand it married names were routinely added to the 1939 Register as and when the people affected subsequently got married. But I don't know when this stopped, or why it was done.
Added to females - where known - and used by the NHS until the 1980s