RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Vasquez109 on Wednesday 04 January 12 01:11 GMT (UK)
-
My 3x GGrandparents were married in Kemble, Glocestershire on 12/06/1806 and when I went to the RO I couldnt believe it when I saw this...
Is this right? It seems very strange to have your banns read nearly a year before you get married. Unless there was a reason that has been lost to the sands of time...
-
It certainly seems an unusual delay. I think an accurate answer would depend on which religion is involved.
I have tried Google without finding any limit on the delay within canon law, however, came across a reference that said under English civil law, banns or a licence only validate the proposed marriage for a period of three months.
vv.
-
Thats certainly very strange. Trying to think of possible reasons why but cant think of any!
-
Banns are proclaimed to allow anyone who has / thinks they have a valid reason for the people in the banns not to be allowed to marry, to speak up or 'forever hold your peace'.
Maybe someone challenged their right to marry and it took some months for it all to be sorted out.
This would explain why they required no further banns after the three months elapsed from the original banns (that vv. uncovered).
If this was the case you would think there would be some record of what happened, in the parish records.
Dawn M
-
It's a puzzle.
I see Dawn M is thinking along the same lines as me, but I'll post anyway.
Maybe there was an objection on the third reading, e.g. from a parent if one of the
parties was a minor. Do you know their ages?
Maybe they were separated for some reason, perhaps military service, illness, or prison.
Presumably you would know if the banns were read again nearer to the wedding.
On further Googling, it looks like the three month limit did not come into force
until after 1806.
vv.
-
The three months was enacted by An Act for amending the Laws respecting the Solemnization of Marriages in England. [18th July 1823]
IX. And be it further enacted, That whenever a Marriage shall not be had within Three Months after the complete Publication of Banns, no Minister shall proceed to the Solemnization of the same until the Banns shall have been republished on Three several Sundays, in the Form and Manner prescribed in this Act, unless by Licence duly obtained according to the Provisions of this Act.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/alm1823.htm
Before this date the relevant Act was Lord Hardwicke’s Act, of 1753 which has no mention of a time limit.
Stan
-
Maybe one or other (or both) changed their minds, then changed it back again.
It has been known ::)
Rishile
-
In such a small rural hamlet, you cant keep many things a secret! Bet it was the talking point for ages!
-
It certainly seems an unusual delay. I think an accurate answer would depend on which religion is involved.
vv.
In 1805 most of this country was christian and so we can be fairly certain that was their religion. This is supported by the fact that the banns book shown was used by the Church of England and so that can be identified as the denomination, although at that time most people were married in an Anglican Church.
-
They were Christian and married at All Saints Church, Kemble in Gloucestershire.
-
From 1754 until 1st July 1837 only Church of England, Jewish, and Quaker marriages were valid. Lord Hardwicke’s Act, of 1753.
Stan
-
Someone may have objected but there is also other reasons such as illness, military service or something. Or they were too busy to do it then and decided to wait.
I have come across lots of banns published with no marriage that took place in that parish.
-
I have ancestors in Scotland who had a 2 year gap between posting banns and marriage.
1702 marriage records 'a pledge restored'. Banns were posted 2 years earlier in 1700. The fact that the pledge was restored may indicate that they participated in 'handfasting'. This custom allowed a couple to live together for a year and a day at which time they could decide whether to part or to make a lifelong commitment. It was considered more important for the bride to be experienced and fertile than to be a virgin.
-
So the groom made sure his wife 'worked' as regards to having kids. :)
If not, find another! ;D
-
On both "handfasting" and the mystery of the banns being called such a long time before the wedding, I'd highly recommend "Marriage Law for Genealogists" by Professor Rebecca Probert, who's the world's leading authority on the history of marriage laws and practices. She explains various possibilities for the banns, and points out that handfasting never existed as a form of marriage, but was an invention by Victorian folklorists (and present-day New Age bods).Also, I'm sure she'd be very interested in hearing from you - she's at Warwick University and encourages genealogists to contact her with their stories of ancestors interesting marriages.
-
This custom allowed a couple to live together for a year and a day at which time they could decide whether to part or to make a lifelong commitment.
It could have been marriage by repute. Marriage by Repute is not living together it is a marriage.
In Scotland this type of marriage was possible following an Act of 1503, and is still legal today confirmed by the 1939,1977, and 1980 Marriage Reform Acts. However if a substantial number of friends and relatives know the pair are not married and are merely contemplating marriage or cohabiting without intending matrimony, the doctrine of this type of irregular marriage does not apply. The cohabitation must be sufficiently long, normally about a year, for the court to infer that the couple tacitly agreed to marry. The present legal procedure is for one party to raise an action in the Court of Session for a declarator of marriage. If the declarator is granted, the Principal Clerk of Session passes the details to the Scottish Register General who registers the marriage according to Section 21 of the 1977 Act. This type of marriage is rare, there are only about two a year, most Scots undergo regular marriages.
Stan
-
This is precisely where the law diverges north and south of the border - you're quite right. For people like me, Scottish law is a baffling world of concepts which look familiar but are often crucially different from their English and Welsh equivalents. That said, from the academic work I've read on the subject it's far from clear what the historic socio-legal practices were in Scotland, since so much of the evidence is tainted by being travellers' tales reported as hearsay and first recorded centuries after the practices are meant to have happened. Either way, you're quite right to note that if we're talking about a Scottish couple then the law has been substantively different when deciding on their marital status.
Another interesting question that arises here is that of what precisely a Scottish court is deciding when it finds a couple to be married by repute - is it finding that the repute and the cohabitation made a marriage, or is it finding that repute was sufficient to warrant a legal assumption that a legal marriage had taken place? In the English arena, it was the latter that was being asserted by the courts, and it's later writers' mistaken assumption that the cohabitation and repute in and of themselves created a marriage which has led to so many mistakes as to what the law used to be. As for Scotland, I'll doff my imaginary cap and admit myself unfit to have my own opinion on the legal detail!