Definition of adulterer/adulteress

[KGarrad]

Surely what is needed is proof?
In the case of fornication, that would be a pregnancy.

[Forfarian]

So undetected fornication isn't fornication? And undetected adultery isn't adultery?

[Calleva]

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=879749.0

Remembered I’d posted information about an ancestor who received a fornication penalty, attached purely as a bit of background.

I was once told in matters with legal implications that the definition of ‘reasonable’ is as good as your Barrister…

Flippant, yes but wondered if a similar approach could be used in consideration of ‘fornication’?

I dimly remember Bill Clinton’s lawyer at the time of the Monica Lewinsky case saying something along the lines ‘it all depends on how you define the word ‘is’.

[GR2]

Caledonian Mercury 15-10-1753:

Thereafter came on the Trial of Alison Inglis, Daughter of --- Inglis at Scone, indicted for Adultery with the deceast George Bruce at Brechin a married Man. After reading the Indictment, she gave in a Petiton praying to be banished Scotland for Life, which the Advocate Depute having consented to, she was banished accordingly, never to return under the usual Certifications.

Her designation suggests she was not married, however, she is indicted for adultery and avoids the death penalty for "notour adultery" by petitioning for banishment instead.

[BushInn1746]

I descend from Richardson of Bubwith via my 3 x Gt Grandmother and he simply denied that the acts had occurred.


HC.CP.1637/3

May 1637

Immorality (adultery / failure to attend church / non-communication)

Office v. Peter Vavasour of Bubwith, esq, defendant

The office accused Peter of committing fornication and adultery with one Ruth Richardson. The office claimed that Peter had behaved very suspiciously and offensively with Ruth, had been found lying on a bed with her, had kept her in his house, and had continued to visit her for days at a time when she returned to her father’s house. The office further claimed that Peter had publicly boasted about his sexual relations with Ruth and with other women since his marriage, and had denied the claims of others that Ruth was a ‘comon strumpett or a whore.’

Peter agreed that Ruth had been a servant in his household, but denied that he had ever had sexual relations with her. He admitted that he had visited her father’s house since her return there, but claimed it was to do business with her father. Peter denied the other accusations made against him, but did admit that he was sometimes absent from church.


University of York
Borthwick Institute GB 193

Cause Papers in the Diocesan Courts of the Archbishopric of York, 1300 to 1858

HC.CP.1637/3

https://www.dhi.ac.uk/causepapers/causepaper.jsp?id=93232

 ---------------

I think you will find a church court needs either an admission of guilt or a minimum of two witnesses.

[Darnity]

If you can find a copy of Prof Rebecca Probert's books about the law and marriage

Marriage Law for Genealogists and Divorced, Bigamist and Bereaved

you might find the definitive answer to your question

[Calleva]

If you can find a copy of Prof Rebecca Probert's books about the law and marriage

Marriage Law for Genealogists and Divorced, Bigamist and Bereaved

you might find the definitive answer to your question

Thank you for passing on details of this book which looks very interesting, there are a number of copies on Abebooks under £10.00.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Marriage-Law-Genealogists-Definitive-Guide-What/32134317143/bd

However it looks like the Marriage Law considered in the book apply to England and Wales only.

Are there any similar publications which cover Scotland and Northern Ireland?

[Forfarian]

he simply denied that the acts had occurred

That's a very common reaction to an accusation of either adultery or fornication.

It sheds no light at all on the original question, which is, does an unmarried person who has sexual relations with a married person commit adultery or fornication?

Thank you, GR2, for that example from 1753, which is relevant.

[Calleva]

he simply denied that the acts had occurred

It sheds no light at all on the original question, which is, does an unmarried person who has sexual relations with a married person commit adultery or fornication?

Unfortunately I don’t think there is a simple answer to the question as there are so many variables for example (not exhaustive): was ecclesiastical law involved? which country did the people involved live in? when did the activities take place? (with apologies) potentially what were the detailed sexual activities that took place?

To mention, for the last question I first wrote ‘conceivably‘’ then changed to ‘potentially’ to avoid any pun!

Further background from Wikipedia with respect to English law

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery_in_English_law