Fornication and baptism

[Seoras]

Hi Deb,I have something similar with two of mine.I can find no record of what they claim was their first marriage and can only conclude it was an irregular marriage.However 40 years later and knowing she was dying they go through a church ceremony in Edinburgh.

George.

[majm]

Hi Deb,

Perhaps it was cheaper (and quicker) to get a new cert than to get a certified copy from BDM in Qld ... or perhaps the registration was not found on an initial search and the OAC needed the bit of paper because of their local bylaw no.  28796 (substitute any number that suits).

But I gather each spoke  I will at the appropriate places

JM

 

[Deb D]

  Yes, both times!  Don't know what the kerfuffle would have been - clueless self managed to find the QLD marriage thingy without too much trouble ... although they would have been chasing it up a fair while back, and things were all on paper, in files, in filing cabinets, then.

However, my Mum insists they got married in '65/66 "to make it legal".   

[majm]

Hi Deb,

I gather you have both of those m.c.  What was illegal about the first one .... cause I actually think that #2 could be lawfully redundant .... otherwise err.... they were on a very long pre-honeymoon ....

Cheers,  JM

[Convictlass]

I had an ancestor who had thirteen chidren - they only got married the year before the mother died.  many prople in the remote areas of aus didn't have anyone to marry them before the babies started arriving - the parents would get married and then baptise the children on the same day!   A convict forfather was denied permission to marry as punishment for fornicating two children into existence so he had a third to prove the point. So there is nothing new under the Southern Cross!

Convictlass

[Deb D]

Hi JM,

Cousin has a copy of the first one (I think via a transcription agent), I've got the second one - both apparently quite legal 

Weird, innit?

Deb

[majm]

Deb, 

I wasn't aware that QLD offered transcriptions .... BUT I can be mistooken. 

I think it is still a statute offence to marry IF you are already married, thus the NSW one could be considered redundant (as opposed to bigamous).

Have you checked the online index for QLD (marriages to 1929 I think)
https://www.bdm.qld.gov.au/IndexSearch/BirIndexQry.m

Cheers,  JM

[majm]

I had an ancestor who had thirteen chidren - they only got married the year before the mother died.  many prople in the remote areas of aus didn't have anyone to marry them before the babies started arriving - the parents would get married and then baptise the children on the same day!   A convict forfather was denied permission to marry as punishment for fornicating two children into existence so he had a third to prove the point. So there is nothing new under the Southern Cross!

Convictlass

Yes, although there were "roving" clergy even in the early 1800's ...  Sometimes they overlooked forwarding their entries to the Sydney C of E clergy at St Phillips.  Gov Macquarie in 1810 established in a series of General Orders what he expected to be done, but alas many clergy  overlooked completing the requirement.   Sometimes you can find the diary of those 'roving' clergy at NSW State Records ...  Gov Macquarie's rules were still the basis for recording baptisms, marriages and burials until civil registration commenced from the 1850's ...    AND the recording even within the civil system is very hit and miss until after WWI

So  of course some denominations simply ignored the rules of the Established Church  and did not co-operate with the civil rules either ...

Cheers,  JM

[Deb D]

Legal technicalities aside ... I still suspect they thought the first one had expired!