RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Topic started by: A bairn on Saturday 04 May 13 18:55 BST (UK)
-
Does anyone know if by law in Scotland in 1916 was it a requirement for widows/widowers to produce a death certificate of previous spouse when entering into a second marriage or was it sufficient to state they were a widow/widower ?
-
My understanding is that, at that time, there was no requirement to produce proof of anything, so name, age, single/widow/(still married :o)...
I am sure someone else will know for certain :)
-
Thank you bookworm that's the impression I'm gaining too.
Maureen
-
I don't know, but it would have been pointless to require it anyway. Anyone who was unable to produce a spouse's death certificate and wished to conceal the fact could just have produced their own birth certificate and claimed to be unmarried. The Registrar would have no way of checking for a previous marriage if the person involved didn't tell him.
-
Hi Forfarian thanks for your reply.The issue is around a relative who claimed on 3 census returns that he was married to the same lady he lived with and stated he was a widower on his 'second' marriage in 1916. I have a copy of the said lady's death certificate which states she was a spinster.If there was no requirement to produce a previous spouse's death certificate then I can only assume that he was of the mindset that considered her his wife, what in Scotland used to be called a 'bidy in '. The details on her death certificate were not given by him and I have been unable to trace a marriage certificate in Scotland but if it exists it may well be in Ireland.
-
Could be his common law wife. quite common status for a bidy in, living as man and wife for several years and to state on Census' as wife - only legal if they can proof lengthy status as man and wife in princple, re wills, children alike, usually has to go to court. No legal status re offical registered Records ie B.M.D.
-
Thanks Terianne.
Maureen
-
If you use the search area at the top of this page, you'll find previous topics on Scottish irregular marriages. Hope you find this helpful,
flst
-
I think Forfarian and flst have given good advice.
In order for "marriage under common law" in Scotland there has to be no barrier to the parties formally being married ie both must be free from any previous lawful marriage.
This doesn't answer the original query but it might save you from readily accepting a "fact" which is still not clear.
jcmac.
-
Hi JCMac the reason I posted the query was that the marriage was performed in a solicitor's office and the solicitor was one of the witnesses so I assumed he would require proof of both parties marital status but maybe not.
Maureen
-
Hello A bairn,
I was trying to advise that Scots Law accepted a simple concept that two people who were free of any previous marriage could declare themselves to be married one to the other and that was it.
No doubt that later in life problems might exist in getting everyone to accept that "fact" and in the 20th.century this would be a more difficult "fact" to have accepted by various authorities.
If she was registered on her death cert. as a Spinster then that would have relevance to the person reporting it and how that information was put to the Registrar. If he didn't register the death then the "fact" of marriage may not have been known to the informant (or not "accepted" by the Registrar).
As for his marriage in 1916 I cannot advise you as to what proof he would be required to produce, if any.
Did they have any children born in Scotland ? If so the birth certificate should record the status of the parents - as they declared to the Registrar !!
jcmac
-
Hi jcmac, the situation is not quite that simple. The marriage eventually came after a long-standing affair which did produce 2 children but who were registered as being the children of the woman's then husband.However I've found articles which are very interesting on the Glasgow Uni site which refer to birth/death/marriage so I think they may be able to answer my query from a legal perspective.
Thanks for getting back to me.
Maureen
-
Hi fist, your suggestion to use the Search button proved invaluable. I found a link there to a Glasgow Uni dept which published research articles on birth/death/marriage.I'll contact the Uni and I think they will know the answer.
Maureen
-
Glad to be of assistance!
flst :D
-
To all who tried to help.
All the information on marriage regular and irregular is contained on a podcast from Glasgow University at
http://workingclassmarriage.gla.ac.uk/the-team/
It contains an amazing amount of information on the legality of marriages mainly in Scotland from the 17th century up until 1939 but also contrasts the differences in England and other parts of Europe.
The podcast is the basis of an article on irregular marriages soon to be published in 'The Journal of Social History'
Maureen
-
Thanks for the update Maureen :)
The podcast sound really interesting. I have added to your info here http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,578172.0.html
Monica
-
You mentioned that the 2 children of the affair were registered as the husband's children and, that "legally" is the position that they are the husband's children even now, if not "biologically". I have some Birth Certificates in my family where it is stated on the Certificate that the mother is married to "bla bla" but she declares that the child is not bla bla's but someone else's child!
-
... but she declares that the child is not bla bla's but someone else's child!
That did happen. Also, sometimes mother stated for the birth cert that husband had deserted her some years and she had not seen him for x amount of time. In other words, confirmation that husband was not father of the child whose birth she was registering.
All down to what information was given to the Registrar at the time I would say...
Monica
-
Hi Caroline only one of the children is registered under the husband's name,he left shortly after the child's birth and was later adopted by the real father.The second child does not have the father's name only a statement that the mother has had no contact wiith her husband for three years.The second child, a girl, was legitamised in 1915 when the mother and her lover married.By this time both parties declared themselves to be widowed.It appears it was not customery to have to produce death certificates for the late spouses, a statement to that effect would have been sufficient.
Maureen
-
Maureen, do you mean they stated the real father of the second child at the time of registration of birth and then later re-registered the birth of the child at Court after their "marriage" (although I don't know if I've got this wrong but you think that they weren't free to marry as their spouses were not dead?)?
Caroline
-
Hi Caroline you do seem to be getting awfully confused, I'll try and make it clearer.The birth certificate of the first child gives the father as the husband she was still living with, he left shortly after.Two years later she had the second child.That birth certificate does not name a father only a statement making it clear the father was not her husband whom she'd had no contact with for 3 years.Both children are registered with the surname of her lover as well as her married surname which is not the case with the children she had by her husband.The eventual marriage of the woman and her lover legitimised the children.My query re death certificates was to discover if the couple would have to produce death certificates to prove they were widowed but it turns out a declaration to that effect was at the time sufficient.Things were not so tightly regulated then as they are now.Perhaps it would help you to read the history of marriage etc in Scotland. Maureen
-
I am confused! From your original query, you seemed to be alluding to the fact that the lady and gentleman had stated that they were widowed but actually weren't and, therefor, were not free to marry as you were asking what they would have to have produced at their "marriage" and so I thought you had not been able to find death certificates for their first spouses. If you did not intend to allude to that then I am wrong and apologise.
I am quite well aware of the laws of marriage in Scotland