From: G6JPG@255soft.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 17:28:12, Chris Pitt Lewis
wrote:
>On 23/06/2020 15:39, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:54:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 8. One of the documents (for each marriage), in the pre-printed
>>>section,
>>> has "... not knowing or believing any lawful Let, or Impediment, by
>>> reason of any Praecontract, entered into before the Twenty-fifth Day of
>>> March, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Four, ... to hinder the said
>>> intended Marriage: ..."; this seems odd, as the document is dated later
>>> than that (it has pre-printed "One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty"
>>> [with "Five" written thereafter] at the top). What happened on 1754-3-25
>>> that made whether things were "entered into" before or after then
>>> important?
>>>
>> Anything after that date would be on the current calendar with the
>> year being unambiguous. An ambiguous (was it new or old style ?) date
>> before that could cause uncertainty where any limitation period was
>> involved.
>>
>Nothing to do with the calendar change (which was in 1752).
Yes, I didn't think that was it - wouldn't make sense giving just one
date.
There were two calendar changes - the one where they nicked a chunk of
September, to get us back in step with the seasons - which I think _was_
in 1752 - and the one that made the year number change definitely
between December and January, rather than around the end of March. That
seems to have come in over several years (causing considerable
confusion), though there was a date (was that also 1752?) after which it
was definite.
>
>25 March 1754 is the day that the Marriage Act 1753 (Hardwicke's Act)
>came into force. One provision of that act made a contract of marriage
>entered into on or after that day unenforceable, in the sense that
>legal action could not be taken in the Church Courts to force the
>parties to go through with it (other consequences such as an action for
>damages might still have been available, I think). So an agreement to
>marry made before that date might still be enforceable, and would be an
>impediment to a different marriage.
Thanks! Very clear!
>
>The age of the parties was not included in the documents for the
>assistance of future genealogists, but because under the same Act a
>marriage by licence of a person under 21 (not being a widow or
>widower), without parental consent, was void, so a licence should not
So a widower or widow under 21 _could_ marry by licence?
>be issued. So "21 and upwards" is all that really needed to be said.
>Didn't stop people lying, or being genuinely confused or ignorant as to
>their precise age. The marriage would be treated as valid unless
>someone actively took court proceedings to annul it.
>
Though three out of the four people in the two marriages I've been
looking at did have higher ages filled in on the form - one was a "25
and upwards" marrying a "22 and upwards".
>There was no such provision for marriages by banns, presumably because
>it was assumed that a disapproving parent would object to the banns.
>
Interesting.
If someone _did_ have a concern over a marriage by banns, which AIUI
were read out on the three preceding weeks (Sundays?), did they have to
speak out in church right after the banns, or could they approach the
vicar (or whoever) quietly in between? I know there's the "speak now or
forever hold your peace", but I think that's the marriage ceremony
itself.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
He [Alfred Kinsey] wouldn't ask 'Have you ever slept with a horse?' He would
say, 'When did you first sleep with a horse?' [RT 2018/5/5-11]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
