marriage laws question

[Sue Millard]

I am researching background information (general - not related to my family) about marriage laws in 1838. For instance:

What were the requirements for a legal marriage?
What did you have to declare or prove, and to whom?
Was illegitimacy or being under 21 a cause of difficulty? (eg, What parental consent was necessary?)
Was legal residency a requirement - eg if someone ran away to a large town and wished to marry there?

The people I have in mind are working class with limited money so special licences are not part of this question.

Any clues would be helpful - T.I.A.

Sue

[Geoffers]

Welcome to the B-G forums

There has over time been an awful lot of amended Law in relation to marriage

What were the requirements for a legal marriage?

Much the same as now, very basically..........
Persons getting married to provide their details to the Vicar/Curate/Minister at least seven days before the first reading of the Banns. The Banns to be recorded in a paper book kept for that purpose and to be audibly read in church for three Sundays preceding the marriage. The marriage to take place within three months of banns being read, in an authorised place by a person in holy orders. The church had a specified form of service, the couple had to agree to the marriage. The service to take place in front of two morw credible witnesses. People who were closely related were not permitted to marry.

Or did you have something else in mind in your question?

What did you have to declare or prove, and to whom?

Beforehand - "Their true Christian Names and Surnames", respective abodes and time they had lived there had to be provided to the person in holy orders.

What did you have to prove? - That the banns had been read without objection.

Was illegitimacy or being under 21 a cause of difficulty?

No. Now and then (but not often) you will find mention in a register of someone crying foul to the banns. Some who were under 21 just said that they were over 21 and this was accepted.

Was legal residency a requirement

I seem to recollect that most of the amending various Acts of this time include a specific section in which it is mentioned that no proof of abode is needed.


Are you trying to show or prove something specific, or support a particular idea?

[Guy Etchells]

First licenses were reasonably cheap, cheaper the procedure by banns if the couple lived in separate districts, the cost of a licence would not prohibit a working class couple marrying by licence.
Second it would be help to buy and read Suggestions for the Guidance of the Clergy with Reference to the Marriage Registration Acts available from Parish Chest
http://www.parishchest.com

I would suggest you read the relevant Act of Parliament on my Acts site at
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....cts/actind.htm

That will give you the legal requirements.

One had to prove very little (virtually nothing) but had to declare quite a lot.
Illegitimacy was no problem and could cause extra information appearing on the marriage entry (mother's surname if father's surname had been commonly used)
Parental consent was not required after 1823.
Residency was a requirement but only limited residency (seven days before the reading of the banns) Residency had to be declared, not proved. This was sometimes got round by arranging with a lodging house to keep a case or a bag there.
Cheers
Guy

[Peter Goodey]

My understanding is that from 1823 a marriage involving a minor without parental consent was not void or voidable. That is not to say that a parent did not have the legal right to object when the banns were called. In that sense, parental consent was still required. Is my understanding wrong?

[Zen Rabbit]

I recomend getting "The English Marriage" by Maureen Waller which is a facinating and readable history of this subject.
I have also come across a passage in the History of the bourough of Stoke upon Trent (1841) where the author mentions the practice of couples having banns read in outlying parishes away from their normal place of residence in order to keep a low profile.

[Guy Etchells]

My understanding is that from 1823 a marriage involving a minor without parental consent was not void or voidable. That is not to say that a parent did not have the legal right to object when the banns were called. In that sense, parental consent was still required. Is my understanding wrong?

You are correct in that a marriage without consent was not void or voidable, but wrong in your conclusion consent was required.

I think you are approaching it from the wrong angle.

If prior to the marriage a parent or guardian etc. specifically forbids the marriage (i.e. he/she contacts the vicar and forbids the marriage) the marriage cannot proceed.
If however the parent forbids the couple to marry but does not contact the vicar the marriage is perfectly legal in all respects.
Cheers
Guy

[Peter Goodey]

The unqualified phrase "Parental consent was not required after 1823" is misleading because it could be inferred that parental dissent was not a legally valid objection to a proposed marriage. In fact, legally expressed parental dissent remained a barrier to marriage.

[Sue Millard]

to clarify - I am not trying to support any theory. I'm researching English law in order to make fictional characters in a historical novel, who were of marriageable age in 1838, behave in a credible fashion.

Useful links, thank you.

[Guy Etchells]

The unqualified phrase "Parental consent was not required after 1823" is misleading because it could be inferred that parental dissent was not a legally valid objection to a proposed marriage. In fact, legally expressed parental dissent remained a barrier to marriage.

Therefore it is not consent that is required but the lack of dissent.
The lack of dissent is not the same as consent.
Cheers
Guy

[Mutley]

to clarify - I am not trying to support any theory. I'm researching English law in order to make fictional characters in a historical novel, who were of marriageable age in 1838, behave in a credible fashion.

Useful links, thank you.

If you read through some of the threads on the forum you will find that members hold marriage certificates that bear no resemblance to the actual truth.
Many of our ancestors could not read or write and did not know if their names were correctly written.
Fathers were deceased when they were actually not and alive when they had actually passed on.
Occupations of fathers were often figments of imagination, or he may have been a XXXX at some point but not always.
They did not carry birth certificates in 1838 and often did not really know their ages.
If illegitimate they could give a fictitious father, there was no check.

The law did not seem to matter as they could not read and write and did not understand it anyway. Most told the truth as they thought even if it was not, others lied out of the back of their heads.

If you obtain a certificate from 1838 and complete the boxes as you think your fictional characters would answer the questions, bearing in mind they probably made an x (mark) instead of a signature then I doubt anyone could say you were wrong.