What does this mean on a marriage cert?

[hmcmillan29]

Hello,

I have a marriage certificate for my 3 x Great grandparents who were married 10 July 1840 in Kilmarnock.

It reads "William McMillan in Glencairn Square and Janet Mackie in Fulburn Lane, after Proclamation, the extract was called for."

This is all it says before going onto the next couple.  Can anyone tell me what the last bit means and is it right that no parents etc are recorded?

Many thanks
Hazel

[Gadget]

Hi Hazel

This link might explain it:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/LANARK/2000-05/0959494740

I think it suggests that the original page went missing and the page was rewritten later from an 'extract'


Gadget

[hmcmillan29]

Thank you very much Gadget.
That explains it.  I was just a bit disappointed with the lack of info it gave.

Cheers
Hazel

[lbathgate]

Hi Hazel

"the extract was called for" or a similar phrase appears quite often in OPR examples.

My take on the phrase is that the couple were married after the banns had been proclaimed three times as was the usual practice, and a an "extract" i.e. a copy of the entry in the OPR which states that they were married was requested.

This "extract" would then be given to the couple in a similar way that a marriage certificate is issued today. It would be their "marriage lines" which may be requested from them to prove that they were married if, for example, they moved to another parish and required to have a child christened.

The example you have given is fairly typical of an OPR entry, a record kept by the Church of Scotland. I've seen many which contain far less information - at least you are told where the bride and groom are from - this is a bonus! It was only with the introduction of Statutory Registration in 1855 in Scotland that the information given, now to a Registrar instead of the session clerk, was of a standard form across Scotland and required infromation such as age of the parties, names of their parents etc.

Best wishes
Lesley

[Gadget]

Hi Lesley

I looked at the page that Hazel referred to and all the entries say either this or that they were married. The handwriting is all uniform as if it had been copied neatly from somewhere else.


Gadget

[hmcmillan29]

Hi Lesley,

Thank you very much for the detail you wrote.  I guess Im lucky that there was addresses written down...like you said.  I hadnt come across a cert like that before.

Gadget, thank you again for taking the trouble to help and to also have a nosey at the cert yourself. 

Kind regards
Hazel

[lbathgate]

Hi Gadget

The handwriting is all uniform as if it had been copied neatly from somewhere else.

I'd definately agree that seeing the orignal page is always a good idea. It was standard practice as far as I'm aware, for the session clerk to jot down the events of the week as they happened and then transfer this into the register at once, so that may be an explanation for the uniform handwriting of many of the entries.

However, it does not explain why in some cases it says that extract was called for or in others that they were married, as you have mentioned. I wonder if this may be explained by cases of some of the couples actually being married in that parish, and in others they have been married in another parish,  only one of the parties having been from Kilmarnock parish, so although the banns were read there, the marriage did not take place there? Just guessing here, but there must be a reason for the differences.

Could it be, if the above is a likely scenario, that Kilmarnock parish "called for an extract" from the other parish so that they had some documentation that the couple had indeed married? But I'm guessing that this couple were both in the same parish from the entry "William McMillan Glencairn Square and Janet Mackie in Fulburn Lane" so that is maybe not holding water as a theory!

Best wishes
Lesley

[lbathgate]

After looking out the example of where I had seen this form of wording before, it appears to also be in Kilmarnock, and any searches on the web also seem to suggest that this form of wording seems to be typical of Kilmarnock OPRs of that period.

Looking at the page I have (for June 1849), four entries have "the extract" mentioned and two "were married this day" The way the entires are worded almost suggests that those who "were married this day..." etc had completed the proclamations of banns  - it says"after being proclaimed" and those for whom "the extract was called" were perhaps still in the process of having the banns being called, as it says " were proclaimed in order to marriage" ...but I may be wrong.

It does not seem to differ if both parties were of that parish or not, so scrub that theory!

One couple on the Kilmarnock page mentioned on 15 June also have a mention in Loudoun Parish for 26 May 1849 (a Saturday), when they "gave in their names and were regularly proclaimed" so you'd think that would be plenty time (the expected 3 weeks) for the banns to be called in both parishes by 15 June (a Friday) in Kilmarnock  when "the extract was called for"....

[lbathgate]

It appears that three out of the four "extract" couples (cant find any trace of the 4th) in the above OPR went on to have children outside of the parish of Kilmarnock, which suggests to me that they perhaps knew that they were going to live elsewhere and required "extract" (marriage lines) to take to their new parish.

Those who were going to live in the parish would not need "extract" as they would continue to live in the parish where it was known that they were married. This applies to one of the "and were married this day" couples on the June 1849 page. Can't find a trace of kids to the one other "were married" couple.

Proof was often required by a parish of the marriage if a couple moved to a new area - otherwise, who knows, they might be living "in sin", Also, the church frowned on "irregular" marriages even though they were legal and pressure would be put on the couple to regularise the marriage. Having proof of marriage saved all this hassle. 

I reckon those who were not going to be living in Kilmarnock parish asked for an "extract" to take with them. Did WIlliam & Janet remain in Kilmarnock or did they go to live elsewhere?