Sherrifs Warrant

[JAP]

...
Note also that nowhere in the register entry was the word ‘irregular’ used.  The register entry only referred to the Sheriff’s Warrant, and, in the place and date column, the form of words ‘By declaration in presence of <witness1> <occupation> <address> and <witness2> <occupation> <address> ….

1. Just a small clarification.

The word "irregular" does, however, appear in the register.  It is in the relevant column heading.

I have in front of me some marriages downloaded from ScotlandsPeople.

The heading for column (6) is as follows (emphasis added by me):
"If a regular Marriage, Signature of
officiating Minister and Witnesses.
If Irregular, Date of Conviction, Decree
of Declaration, or Sheriff's Warrant."

2. While I'm posting, I might just add a quote about "irregular" marriage which I have read on other forums.
Apparently it is from a book "Scottish Roots" by Alwyn James, ISBN 0-88289-802-7:
'The epithet "irregular" should not lead you to believe that it was illegal or second-rate (it wasn't), or that it was indulged in by a small minority.   Dr. Ian Grant pointed out to me that in checking through the first 200 marriages in Glasgow Blythswood for 1904, he counted 81, more than 40 per cent, which were marriages by declaration.'

JAP

[JAP]

...
As in all such situations the children were only legitimate if the irregular marriage took place before any kids were conceived.  Otherwise, in Scots Law, they were known as adulterine bastards ! ...

Just some further clarifications/questions.

My understanding (admittedly all too often imperfect!) has always been that a so-called 'adulterine bastard' referred to a child where one (or both) of the parents was not free to marry i.e. one (or both) of the parents was already married to someone else?

And that a child of parents who were not married to each other was simply called a 'bastard'?

And that, in Scots Law, a child of parents who were not married would be legitimated by their subsequent marriage as long as they had been free to marry at the time of the birth (or perhaps conception? - though this could be difficult to establish with any precision) of the child?

I'd really appreciate hearing from ibi or anyone else with views on this, and particularly from anyone with access to authoritative sources.

Many thanks,

JAP

[ibi]

...
Note also that nowhere in the register entry was the word ‘irregular’ used.  The register entry only referred to the Sheriff’s Warrant, and, in the place and date column, the form of words ‘By declaration in presence of <witness1> <occupation> <address> and <witness2> <occupation> <address> ….

1. Just a small clarification.

The word "irregular" does, however, appear in the register.  It is in the relevant column heading.

I have in front of me some marriages downloaded from ScotlandsPeople.

The heading for column (6) is as follows (emphasis added by me):
"If a regular Marriage, Signature of
officiating Minister and Witnesses.
If Irregular, Date of Conviction, Decree
of Declaration, or Sheriff's Warrant."

Correct.  Perhaps I should have used the words, - nowhere in the information written into the specific register entry by the registrar does the word irregular appear!

2. While I'm posting, I might just add a quote about "irregular" marriage which I have read on other forums.
Apparently it is from a book "Scottish Roots" by Alwyn James, ISBN 0-88289-802-7:
'The epithet "irregular" should not lead you to believe that it was illegal or second-rate (it wasn't), or that it was indulged in by a small minority.   Dr. Ian Grant pointed out to me that in checking through the first 200 marriages in Glasgow Blythswood for 1904, he counted 81, more than 40 per cent, which were marriages by declaration.'

JAP

This reflects the massive loss in authority and power of the presbyterian churches in the large cities.  The percentages in rural areas were much much lower.  It often the case that there isn't a single irregular marriage in a whole register.

ibi

[ibi]

...
As in all such situations the children were only legitimate if the irregular marriage took place before any kids were conceived.  Otherwise, in Scots Law, they were known as adulterine bastards ! ...

Just some further clarifications/questions.

My understanding (admittedly all too often imperfect!) has always been that a so-called 'adulterine bastard' referred to a child where one (or both) of the parents was not free to marry i.e. one (or both) of the parents was already married to someone else?

And that a child of parents who were not married to each other was simply called a 'bastard'?

And that, in Scots Law, a child of parents who were not married would be legitimated by their subsequent marriage as long as they had been free to marry at the time of the birth (or perhaps conception? - though this could be difficult to establish with any precision) of the child?

I'd really appreciate hearing from ibi or anyone else with views on this, and particularly from anyone with access to authoritative sources.

Many thanks,

JAP

Just goes to show you how incorrect info can be perpetuated!  In between the offline composition of my long post and the jiggery pokery required to divide it in two to fit the RootsChat post length limit, some text went missing.  Even then it doesn't say what it should have said.

So, this section should read,-

In terms of legitimacy be careful to check the marital status of the couple.  If they had never been married previously, then no problem, but if one of both had then complications could arise.  Obviously if a previous marriage hadn't been dissolved through divorce or death then the irregular marriage was bigamous. As in all such situations the children were only legitimate if the parents had been free to marry at the time that any kids were conceived.  Otherwise, in Scots Law, they were known as adulterine bastards.

I think that that now reads right!

BTW, as far as I'm aware the word 'bastard' has no precise status in common or canon law in Scotland.  The term used in the OPRs ranges from the mild 'unlawful' to the much more direct 'conceived in fornication' !

ibi

[jaybelnz]

My great grandfathers 2nd Marriage was Irregular, and they made a Declaration in front of two witnesses!  The record was found on Scotland's People.  Maybe I was lucky?

From SP website

Irregular Marriages
Bear in mind that 'irregular' marriages, by exchange of promises before witnesses, by betrothal and consummation, or by cohabitation and repute, were forms of marriage recognised by Scots Law, yet may have taken place without any official record of the event.