Missing North Northumberland marriages

[jon541]

Something that has been frustrating me for years so I thought I would throw myself on the mercy of the Northumberland expertise on this board.

I have a whole cluster of apparent marriages from the North of Northumberland in the first 15 years or so of civil registration that aren't ... GRO-registered I mean ... and I was wondering if anyone else had encountered anything similar.

Normally I would assume 1) that they weren't formally married but in a couple of these cases I have strong indications that they were or 2) that they married elsewhere/over the border ... but extensive searches in the border Scottish counties plus the usual 'irregular marriage' spots such as Lamberton Toll haven't borne fruit or 3) that they're in the index somewhere under a variant name spelling - but I have checked every conceivable combination my imagination can come up with. 4) I have also considered that the brides may have married with another name than their maiden name but can find no evidence of that either.

Because these families were clustered around Lowick and tended to baptize Presbyterian, I had a suspicion that perhaps the Bethel Chapel there was neglecting for some years to forward their returns but I believe a Supt. Registrar had to be present for non-conformist marriages which skittles that theory.  Another possibility, though even less likely I would have thought, is that the Glendale registrar somehow neglected to forward them to the GRO.  (It's on my radar to make a personal search of the indexes in Berwick).

Here are some examples with the census reference following the estimated marriage date showing  couples and their families:-

1) William Brown and Isabella Patterson  m. c1842 (at HO107/2422 fo 275 pg 2 in 1851)
2) Andrew Pattie and Isabella Elliott m. c1850 (at RG9/3891 fo 11 pg 16 in 1861)  ... the parish clerk makes it very clear that their first 2 children, b. 1847 and 1849 were illegitimate so all the more reason to believe him when he designates them husband and wife in all subsequent baptisms.
3) William Pattie and Catherine Horn m. c1838 (at HO107/2422 fo 227 pg 5 in 1851)
4) John Brown and Margaret McQueen m. c1855 (at RG9/3884 fo 19 pg 9 in 1861)
5) Isabella Brown Hall and Henry Drysdale m. c1840 (at HO107/2422 fo 267 pg 18 in 1851)

All of this lot lived in or around Lowick.  I have several birth certificates for children to these couples, all referring to the parents as husband and wife.

Any theories or suggestions as to what might have happened here gratefully received!

[jon541]

Sorry, I mentioned Andrew Pattie and Isabella Elliott m. c1850 ... should be *Elizabeth* Elliott

[River Tyne Lass]

Unfortunately, I am not an expert on this subject but can offer a thought.  Perhaps some of the people you mention weren't really married.    I have come across quite a few cases of people seemingly purporting to be a happily married couple but they were not.  I have found this with some of my own ancestors.
One couple amongst my own ancestors had their first child in 1847.  They married two years after their sixth child in 1859 and then had another three.  In all their children's baptisms they appear as if they were married.  Why these ancestors chose to marry at that particular time (12 years after first child) I will likely never know.
When I first started doing family history I was taken a bit by surprise by this type of thing as I had somewhat of a idea that Victorians would fit my stereotyped idea of Victorians. 
Perhaps having a certificate wasn't as important to some people back then  as we might think. 
One party of a couple may have already been married so they may not have wanted to risk being found out in a bigamous marriage.  Divorce would have been no easy option in the distant past. 

[jon541]

Thanks, I think your suggestion is quite possibly the case though it's not something I've really observed elsewhere in the North East.  Maybe that little enclave of places in the North of Northumberland around Ancroft, Lowick and Scremerston was a law unto itself. 

Victorian parish clerks were a pretty censorious lot though, not really inclined to wink at moral laxity ... and living together and having children without being married would most certainly have been viewed in that light.  Just to take the example I have given above of Andrew Pattie and Elizabeth Elliott.

He had a daughter in 1847 who may or may not have been by Elizabeth:
"Elizabeth illegitimate Dr of - Andrew - Pattie - Unthank Farm - Agricultural Labourer" (Scremerston PR)
... and another daughter in 1849 by Elizabeth (the entry makes it look like a boy but it's a girl called Williamson):
William son illegitimate - Elizabeth Elliot [&] Andrew Pattie - Unthank Stead - Spinster [&] Husbandman  (Scremerston PR)

However, they went on to have a further 8 children starting with my great x 2 grandmother, Dorothy Pattie, born 4th April 1851 at Lowick, all of whom were registered and baptized as if legitimate. Dorothy's birth certificate states that her mother is Elizabeth Pattie, formerly Elliott.

I wasn't really expecting anyone to shed dazzling insight on this little enigma but it's great to get some second opinions so thanks very much for taking the time to reply.  I think your suggestion will have to be my No. 1 assumption.

 

[Phodgetts]

Hello Jon

A problem I discovered whilst researching my families in the Duddo area. A young and newly installed minister there, many moons ago, was visited by an older minister, just to check up on the lad and find out how he was doing, discovered him tending a fire. He was cleaning out the old dusty cupboards and burning some old books. Yes, they were the birth, baptism and death registers! The older minister prevented the younger minister from doing any more damage that day. What happened to the remaining Duddo books I do not know, I got told they ended up at Norham, but have since been 'lost'. Horrifying story, but a sad truth.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and see if it affects your research;

 https://www.ukbmd.org.uk/reg/districts/berwick.html

P

[Phodgetts]

I have come across quite a few cases of people seemingly purporting to be a happily married couple but they were not.  I have found this with some of my own ancestors.
One couple amongst my own ancestors had their first child in 1847.  They married two years after their sixth child in 1859 and then had another three.   

Have you heard about the nickname "Book i bosom"?

At village fairs way back in the day (pre 1850) some priests went to the fairs and carried in their cloaks (close to their bosom) their bible and the marriage rites. Young couples were able to approach the priest and ask to be 'married'. It was a verbal agreement and it was called "fasting" or "festing", and whilst holding hands they would agree and swear to live together for one year (or a period of time) and after that period of time had elapsed, they could then get properly married or not! It was similar to a Danish custom in which the clasping of hands took place and couples were 'wed'. Of course, the next time the couple saw the priest they might well have a child, or more if a longer period of time had elapsed. A fascinating custom in the Borders or old Marches of the Border on both sides of the border.

I hope I explained it correctly. It surprised me when I first learned of the custom just a few weeks ago. Perhaps given the dates you mention the custom carried on a little longer than 1850 in the region?

https://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/bookabosom

P

[jon541]

Fascinating info Phodgetts... thanks.  I wasn't aware of the hand-fasting bit.

The first missing marriage I listed above is the one that really bugs me - it was my No.1 target the first time I visited St. Catherine's House in the late 1980s and it still eludes me.  Those two are also missing from the 1841 census on either side of the border.  Ancestors, huh?!

What specifically were you referring to in the document linked from your first message?  The info at the bottom that says the parishes were lost just means that they were lost from Berwick Reg. District when it was reorganized, not that any information was lost. But perhaps that's not what you were referring to?

[jora]

This may be one of the marriages you were looking for.

14 April 1849  on the 7th inst. at Lamberton Toll.   Andrew Pattie, hind, of Unthank, to Eliz. Elliott of the same place.

From Irregular Marriages recorded in the Berwick Advertiser etc.

[jon541]

Jora, you star!!  That is indeed the right couple.  I looked at the Lamberton Toll records when last at Woodhorn but they're very scrappy and I don't think complete.  I will check again armed with that date.

This restores my faith in logic because, as I said above, the parish clerk at the time for Scremerston seems to have been quite fastidious in distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate offspring. Their daughter (born 18th Feb 1849) was baptized on the 15th April, a week after this marriage date, and yet still is denoted as illegitimate.  Although the baptism makes clear that Andrew Pattie was the father, she was stuck with her mother's maiden name as surname until her own marriage.

Huge thanks for this - I've been looking for it for years.  You mention your source but the Berwick Advertiser for the 1840s is not yet included in the run on the British Newspaper Archive.  Are these extracts of irregular marriages also reproduced elsewhere?