Handfasting in Scotland

by Kristin Gleeson

Handfasting rituals, especially in Scotland, has long been surrounded by mythical images of couples binding their hands and even drawing blood to form a trial marriage that would last one year, after which, the couple could in mutual consent, stay together or part. The real ritual of handfasting is not quite the same. To understand handfasting it’s important to know first that legal marriage in the British Isles in late Medieval times was understood in terms of either exchanging consent in the present tense (i.e. I take you to be my wife) or exchanging consents in the future tense (i.e. I will take you to be my wife). Exchanging consents in the present tense (I take you to be my husband, etc.) by sexual intercourse on the strength of that promise. There was no need for witnesses or the consent of the parents. There was no need for a priest. Witnesses would strengthen the proof of the marriage, but they weren’t necessary. Two people could exchange vows and that was enough. There was no need for banns or a mass to bless the marriage, just two people consenting. It wasn’t even necessary to have sexual intercourse, the marriage was binding. This legal position was made from about 1200 onwards with the support and direction of the Church.

 In Scotland there was a third type of marriage called “marriage by habit and repute.” This was a marriage established when a couple lived together as if married and presented themselves to society as married; a kind of common law marriage. Any denial by either person could counter the legal status of the marriage, though. This type of marriage was commonly invoked after one or both had died and the heirs were trying to establish their claim.

Like elsewhere, in Scotland, divorce wasn’t possible. A couple were married for life. The only avenue out of a marriage was to get it annulled or to separate legally, but in that case remarriage wasn’t possible. Grounds for annulment were a couple were too young (under 12 for a woman, 14 for a man); too closely related, impotent at the time of the marriage, insane or already married/betrothed to someone else. Even if they were too young at the time they were initially together, if they didn’t stop living together once they came of age they were considered legally married from that point onward. It wasn’t until the Scottish Reformation in 1560 that divorce and remarriage became possible.

 The common process for a marriage in the late medieval time up until the Reformation included a betrothal, a proclamation of the banns and consent in the present tense. The betrothal was a formal ceremony in which the couple exchanged future consents and marriage contracts were officially agreed. Proclaiming the banns involved announcing the forthcoming wedding in church and the consent in present tense was the wedding, usually followed by a priest blessing it and conducting a mass. Afterwards the couple would live together. All of these steps could be separated by some length of time.

 Though the Church and the law recognized clandestine marriages (marriages made without witnesses and the usual Church presence) they did everything they could to discourage them. It could sometimes cause legal and other complications with families. Those couples who married clandestinely the Church tried to compel to marry again in a church in front of witnesses and with a clerical blessing. With the Reformation many Protestant countries changed their marriage laws and required a minister or priest to be present to make it valid. In 1563 the Roman Catholic Church changed the canon law at the Council of Trent and required the priest to conduct the marriage ceremony for it to be valid. In Catholic countries, a simple exchange of present tense consents and an exchange of future consents followed by sexual intercourse were no longer valid ways to get married.

Since Scotland became a Protestant country in 1560 the changes in canon law made at the Council of Trent weren’t adopted. So both Scottish civil law and the Church essentially kept what made a marriage unchanged. Consent in the present tense, or consent in the future tense followed any time later by sexual intercourse. The only changes were to permit divorce and remarriage and a reduction in the degrees of consanguity. The Protestant church wasn’t any less happy about clandestine marriage than its predecessor, and it continued to censor those who had done it and encouraged them to repeat the ceremony in church, in a more formal setting. By the 18th century, though the Church no longer recognized marriage in future tense, but the civil law continued to support it and that remained unchanged until 1940.

Handfasting

Handfasting was the term used for betrothal in late Medieval early modern Scotland and northern England. It meant the ceremony in which future consents to marriage were exchanged and the marriage contracts were agreed. The origins of handfasting are traced back to the Lothians and other Germanic peoples who inhabited the area. The couple plited their troth and the contract was sealed, like any other contract by a handshake. This joining of hands was called “handfaestung” in Anglo-Saxon and other Germanic languages and its meaning is a pledge by giving of a hand. This joining of hands became a feature of betrothals in Medieval Scotland. The protocol book of a notary public of 1556 describes the betrothal of Richard Lawder to Jane Hepburn who “with their hands joined betrothed the said David and Janet who took oath as is the custom of the Church”. The Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue gives several examples that illustrate handfasting in late Medieval and early modern Scotland. Those examples involved the exchange of future consents to marry. If a couple was handfasted and then had sex on the basis of that handfasting they were no longer handfasted but married, legally binding for life. But if they didn’t have sex and didn’t exchange present tense consents then they weren’t married. The betrothal, or handfast, could be dissolved, then.

Though the civil law essentially remained the same the cultural customs surrounding marriage did change over the 4 centuries between the Scottish Reformation and 1940. Handfasting fell away about the late 17th century or at least were no longer called “handfasting.” In the late 18th century a kind of a myth arose around handfasting among some amateur Celtic scholars who felt it had ancient Celtic roots. It understood handfasting as a kind of trial marriage for a year and a day, after which the couple could part freely or remained married. This myth was taken up by the Romantic novelist in the 19th century, and it continued on until the 20th century and eventually became incorporated in the neo-Pagan rituals still practiced today.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kristin Gleeson has a Ph.D. in history and a Masters of Library Science. She writes historical novels and non-fiction history. Her series, The Highland Ballad Series is set in Tudor Scotland. The Hostage of Glenorchy is the first. In the series, and the second, The Mists of Glen Strae is to follow at the end of November. You can find out more about Kristin Gleeson and her books on her website.

The Laddie in his Plaidie

by Kristin Gleeson

If anyone is asked to picture a Scottish Highlander, one image is certain to come to mind. A man in a kilt. But did the Highlander always wear a kilt? Some may know that the kilt was outlawed after the final battle of the Jacobite rising at Culloden in 1746, when Bonnie Prince Charlie was defeated, only to rise to the height of fashion during Queen Victoria’s time when she visited Scotland and made it her place for her summer holidays.

But if we go back before the Jacobite rising, to the Tudor period, is it likely that Highlanders would be dressed in the kilts we so often see pictured? In truth there are just a few sources that give us hints at what a Highlander looked like, and there is no doubt about the impact. They dressed markedly different from the Lowland Scot, who wore for the most part the same clothes as their counterparts in England. The newly made Lowland earls in this time period were known to wear blue bonnets which later came to signify them. The bonnet, which was similar to the type seen in portraits of Henry VIII and others of the time, was saucer shaped and not like the bonnets women wore later in time.

The first look at a Highlander in the Tudor period is found in 1521 in John Major’s A History of Greater Britain:

From the middle of the thigh to the foot they have no covering for the leg, clothing themselves with a mantle instead of an upper garment and a shirt dyed with saffron. ...In time of war they cover their whole body with a shirt of mail or iron rings, and fight in that. The common people of the Highland Scots rush into battle having their body clothed with a linen garment manifoldly sewed and painted or daubed with pitch with a covering of deerskin.

It appears that the main source of covering was the mantle and the shirt and even later, in the 1570s, Lindsay of Piscottie referred to the ‘Reidschankis, or wyld Scottis...cloathed with ane mantle, with ane schirt saffroned after the Irisch maner, going bair legged to the knie.’

The Bishop of Ross also described the highland man in 1578 and pointed out the ‘long and flowing mantles’ that served as a cloak by day and a blanket by night. He also observed that some men wore a short woollen jacket with open sleeves and that the linen shirts were large, with numerous folds and wide sleeves sometimes sewn up with red and green silk thread. The shirts were also sometimes coloured with saffron and others were smeared with grease to preserve them.

But the colours of the plaid were a far cry from the vibrant hues now seen today in various kilts. When George Buchanan, a Stirlingshire historian published a description of the Highlander dress in 1582 he mentioned that they delighted in variegated and striped garments, some in blue and purple, which was ideal for concealing themselves in heather. The majority, however, favoured dark brown, ‘imitating nearly the leaves of the heather, that when lying upon the heath in the day, they may not be discovered by the appearance of their clothes.’

1594, when the highlanders went over to join the forces of Red Hugh O’Donnell in his fight against the English in 1594, and an Englishman observed them:

They are recognised among the Irish Soldiers by the distinction of their arms and clothing, their habits and language, for their exterior dress was mottled cloaks of many colours with a fringe to their shins and calves, their belts were over their loins outside their cloaks.

This entry is the first tangible suggestion of the presence of what was later called the ‘belted plaid’ or the ‘great plaid’ and eventually known as the kilt. This ‘great plaid’ was later described in 1689 by a chaplain who visited Scotland:

They are constant in their habit or way of clothing; pladds are most in use with ‘em which.. to only served them for cloaths by day in case of necessity were pallats or beds in the night at such time as they travelled.

These pladds are about seven or eight yards long differing in fineness according to the abilities or fancy of the wearers. They cover the whole body with ‘em from the neck to the kneese excepting the right arm, which theey mostly keep at liberty. Many of ‘em have nothing under these garments besides waistcoats and shirts, which descent no lower than the knees, and they so gird’em about the middle as to give’em the same length as the linen under ‘em and thereby supply the defect of drawers and breeches.

There is much discussion among scholars about when the kilt or belted plaid actually came into being because there is no clear evidence, only speculation. Antonia Fraser, in her iconic biography of Mary Queen of Scots clearly did not support the idea of the kilt when she discussed Mary’s love of wearing her national dress that ‘Scottish dress for a girl consisted merely of a series of wild animals’ skins draped about the person,’ and in her footnote wrote, ‘Plaid of a sort was already known at this date, and Mary later wore it in Scotland, but tartan, in the form we know it today, was not, and nor was the kilt.’

But in assessing the observers of the time and the use of the term ‘mantle’ which had no set length or size, it is possible to see that a length of plaid could be wrapped and draped in such a manner that it might be like the ‘great plaid’ or the early type of kilt. Each person would naturally have his own manner of wearing it, adapting it to his size and shape. But what is clear, however is that when writing a novel, there is no clear thought as to what they should wear. Within reason it is entirely plausible to dress the laddie in his plaiddie. This is what I chose to do in the first novel of my new series The Highland Ballad Series, The Hostage of Glenorchy.

~~~~~~~

Originally from Philadelphia, Kristin Gleeson lives in Ireland, in the West Cork Gaeltacht, where she teaches art classes on occasion, plays harp, sings in an Irish choir and runs two book clubs for the village library.

She holds a Masters in Library Science and a Ph.D. in history, and for a time was an administrator of a national archives, library and museum in America. She has also worked as a public librarian in America and now in Ireland.

Connect with Kristin::
www.kristingleeson.com
www.facebook.com/kristingleeson1
Twitter: @krisgleeson

Buy links: 

Amazon: http://hyperurl.co/l6pkqk
Nook: http://bit.ly/1SdFR7q
Kobo: https://store.kobobooks.com/en-us/ebook/the-hostage-of-glenorchy
Itunes: http://apple.co/1SdFUA9