Genealogy Chat

The name in question is one of those names that in English is a name in it's own right and can be spelt 3 or 4 different ways as 4 different names. here his name in gaelic represents all those other names. For example if in gaelic your name is Catriona, this is translated as Catherine. in English, there are variants and different spellings of catherine but each differnt spelling is a name in it's own right.

So my Oh could yes be also known as but when i encoutered a problem with the inland revenue recently they insisted there were two people with different names. I had a terrible job explaining, he was known as his gaelic name and when he started work thats the name the tax people got.

It was only looking at this thread i looked up our marriage and realised what exactly was registered. Unfortunately when we met he told me his name was ***** and so when we married that was fine til our son was born. We gave him a name that turned out be the same as my OH.

This has caused a few problems with health records etc but moreso with legal things and the electoral role.

I suppose at the end of the day it doesn't really matter but his name on his birth cert doesnt match our marriage cert and if we had to produce our marriage cert for something his name might cause some problem.

I have had to change every record because he was registered incorrectly up here yet his family didnt think it mattered!

people signing cheques in their native gaelic name had to be stopped as they couldnt verify their signatures as the accounts were opened in their English names, caused a huge headache.

Sorry Romany Star i seemed to have hijacked this thread a bit and that wasnt quite my intention .

Thanks for all you helpful suggestions
Florence
in the hebrides :-)

The idea that you're wed to the Gaelic-named guy, but not the English- named guy definitely seems schizophrenic to me. Of course, the marriage could still be in question if you're not of sound mind.

One is required to register a birth, not name the child. The name has no real connection to the b.cert.

Births Mar 1901 (>99%)
Smith Male Burton 6b 387

In 1901 there were over 15000 births rego'ed as Male - so was Male Smith the "real" name of the guy in my above example. I know an English b.cert had a col 10 where one could subsequently (up to a year) add/alter a forename on production of a baptismal cert or affidavit, but there's no such provision on a Scottish b.cert.

I should think that, if you OH is known by his Gaelic name then that would be considered acceptable. After all, how often have we seen an Elizabeth signing the register as Lizzie or a Janet known as Jessie or a Helen known as Ellen signing with the name that they were known by in everyday life?

Sorry - I'd assumed you'd married in Scotland.

Another member has recently enquired because his surname is incorrectly recorded on the gro index. We weren't too sure if it is also misspelt on the MC.
He was advised to read the following and take the necessary action

https://www.gov.uk/correct-marriage-registration.

Thinking aloud, it might be possible for the original entry for yours, and the subsequent Register office entries, to be amended to give OH's 'also known as' name.

As notices for Register Office marriages are displayed 2 weeks in advance, there might be the argument that although you might not be married according to the Rites of your Church, you are legally. If you think about it, 3 successive Sundays of Banns = 2 calendar weeks = Register office notices.

Thanks DetEcTive but we got married in England! yes i do strangely want to stay married after all we have been(technically) for 20 years, it's just after reading this thread I started thinking!

I mean, I did everything legally but maybe he didn't ie re the banns but his name that is a different matter.Think I will need to make a few enquiries to set my mind at rest.
Worst case sonnario is that we would have to get married all over again eeek!!!!

Florence
in the hebrides :-0 ;-)

Do you want to be married to him Florence? :-D :-D

If it's worrying you, it might be best to follow the 'contact us' links on this URL

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regscot/getting-married-in-scotland/index.html

Does anyone know it the rules re the reading of banns differs in scotland? When i got married, my c of e church in kent read out the banns 3 sundays in a row. OH came down from scotland and we attended the last calling the week before.

My minister asked and are the banns being read in you oh's church? When I asked my prospective FIL(who was an elder) he said, "no we dont do that up here, but a notice will be displayed outside the town hall"

When I told my minister this, he said that they had to read the banns out in church, but actually they didnt and dont up here! Also my oh signed our marriage cert in his Gaelic name not his actual name as it is on his birth cert. Didnt realise this for ages after. Does this make the cert illegal or worse still is our marriage legal!!!!! Help please.

Florence
in the hebrides :-S

Thankyou all, MGNV big thanks for your time, that's confirmed what I thought. All the best.

There is no requirement for the couple to be present when the Banns are read

Re safc's post:

A catalog search shows:
Film Notes (This family history center has 3 of 3 films/fiche.)
Note Location Collection/Shelf Film/DGS
General register (baptisms, marriages, burials) 1575-1782; Marriages 1754-1786; Banns 1754-1786; Marriages and banns 1786-1806 Family History Library British Film 1067298 Items 4-9

So there's no knowing if this was from a register for Marrs or for Banns or for both mixed together.

Thanks Jax. Thanks Grannyfranny.

Sounds like a Banns register to me.

The C of E rules are that if you are marrying by Banns, they must be read out at the parish church of both parties, plus the church at which they intend to marry, which may or may not be either of the other 2. They are read out 3 times in the previous period before the marriage, not sure exactly how long this is, but can find out if required. They seem to be read out on 3 consecutive Sundays, again I'm not exactly sure if this is the ruling.

And it isn't a requirement for the couple to attend for the readings, though I'm sure it's encouraged. When I was married 40 years ago, the church we married at was where I had attended for many years, but no longer lived in the parish. I was still on the electoral roll though, as it was a requirement then, not any longer.
Our Banns were read there, plus at the parish church where I lived but didn't attend, and at the parish church where OH lived, but had never attended, as his family went to the URC.
And the same for my D 5 years ago, Banns were read at my church, where they married, plus at the parish church where they both lived but never attended.

Reading of Banns has a function "it's to announce the intention to marry and a chance for anyone to put forward a reason why the marriage may not lawfully take place"

so long as that function was fulfilled i see no reason for why a couple should have to be prescent at both parishes as i said before, Even the church recognise people cannot appear at two different places at the same time,

Roy

Having googled travel in the 1780s it came up with this which is approx. the same distance from London to that part of Sussex

Travel

Travel was slow, difficult and expensive. It took all day to travel about 100 km by coach and longer by cart.

So where ever the pair of them were living at the time it was more or less unreasonable for them to be expected to attend

The banns for my marriage were read in two parishes in two countries - my home parish in Buckinghamshire and my husband's home parish in Northern Ireland. Both of us attended for the readings in Buckinghamshire but neither of us attended the Ulster ones (MIL did though).

You basicaly had 3 months for the banns to be read

You must have your banns read out in church for three Sundays during the three months before the wedding. This is often done over three consecutive Sundays but does not have to be

There is nothing in the rules on Banns that says they have to be read in both parishes "on the same sunday" Just that they have to be read in both parishes



Roy

I cant see how they would expect people to be at the church for the Banns back then.....How long would it take to travel 50 miles in those days, when they probably only had one day off a week if lucky

Did you not look at the link i posted Ref Banns

Roy

True, but my step father was verger of a church and I spent a lot of time there at weekends and school holidays, I remember the couples being present for the banns - very strict, otherwise the marriage could not go ahead. I've since heard of banns being read days apart for couples from different parishes so that they can and will be present. I suppose it may depend on the church, high churches are known to do things by the book. Maybe it was different in the late 1700's.

Even the church recognise people cannot appear at two different places at the same time,

The logic your applying means no two people would ever be able to get married unless they both came from the same parish.

Roy