On 20 February 2010 15:33, Gordon Johnson <gordon@kinhelp.co.uk> wrote: > ** According to the book "Marriages, regular and irregular", by "an Advocate" (William Hodge, Glasgow, 1893), any of these irregular marriages only are legal if both parties are free to marry, and both consent to the apparent marriage. Gordon. ------------------------------------- Thanks Gordon, that looks pretty clear and logical [not commonly found in legal discourses!!]. Of course we are still no nearer discovering if James BISHOP formed a pseudo-bigamous liaison later. Unfortunately, if he did so, there is not much chance that such a situation would be recorded anywhere, e.g. on his death certificate. -- Best wishes Ray ********************************************************** >From Ray Hennessy Forenames website: www.whatsinaname.net Preferred Email address: ray@whatsinaname.net Hints for Scotland's People at http://bit.ly/WIAN-SCP **********************************************************

"Both consent"? I suppose that makes nonsense of one of my favourite stories:- Couple had been married for many years, but husband wanted out. He confessed to bigamy, having been married some years previous to the present "marriage". Present marriage was declared invalid, and husband jailed. Meanwhile first wife had died. Second "wife" then claimed marriage by repute, and this was upheld. Tony ---- Ray Hennessy <ray7033@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 20 February 2010 15:33, Gordon Johnson <gordon@kinhelp.co.uk> wrote: > > > ** According to the book "Marriages, regular and irregular", by "an Advocate" (William Hodge, Glasgow, 1893), any of these irregular marriages only are legal if both parties are free to marry, and both consent to the apparent marriage. Gordon. > ------------------------------------- > > Thanks Gordon, that looks pretty clear and logical [not commonly found > in legal discourses!!]. Of course we are still no nearer discovering > if James BISHOP formed a pseudo-bigamous liaison later. > Unfortunately, if he did so, there is not much chance that such a > situation would be recorded anywhere, e.g. on his death certificate. > > -- > Best wishes > > Ray > > ********************************************************** > >From Ray Hennessy > Forenames website: www.whatsinaname.net > Preferred Email address: ray@whatsinaname.net > Hints for Scotland's People at http://bit.ly/WIAN-SCP > ********************************************************** > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

wrentony@ntlworld.com wrote: > "Both consent"? I suppose that makes nonsense of one of my favourite > stories:- > > Couple had been married for many years, but husband wanted out. He > confessed to bigamy, having been married some years previous to the > present "marriage". Present marriage was declared invalid, and > husband jailed. Meanwhile first wife had died. Second "wife" then > claimed marriage by repute, and this was upheld. That is a good one. And I don't see that the need for consent would in any way invalidate the constitution of a marriage "by habit and repute" - in the nature of things, this is not an event, but a process, and is validated largely by the general behavious of the parties over a period of time, and their reception in the community. The man consented to the arrangement at the outset, and I am fairly sure that a later change of mind would be disregarded by the courts. In fact, one of the other forms of irregular marriage "promise 'subsequently copula'" is designed specifically to catch cheating male partners. But do you by any chance have chapter and verse for this story? - I'm not seeking to cast doubt, but I would be very interested to learn the nuts-and-bolts of it. For instance, a fairly basic principle of marriage is that both parties must, at the time of the marriage, be free to marry each other (ie, over 16, not related to each other in any of the forbidden degrees, and not married to anyone else). So I would be very interested to know the relative dates of various events, including: - the "husband's" abandonment of his first (presumably valid?) marriage - the first wife's death - the date of the second (apparently valid?) marriage - "husband's" admission of bigamy and jailing - declaration of marriage "by habit and repute" I would also be interested to know (assuming this took place post-1855) whether and how the marriage was then registered. Gavin Bell

In a Scottish context the term 'irregular marriage' generally refers to marriages contracted between parties without the benefit of officiating clergy of the established church, i.e. Church of Scotland. As has already been said 'irregular' marriages does not necessarily mean that so called marriages were not lagal or that the children were deemed illegitimate.  As I understand it, under Scottish Law,  children born of parents who were considered married by habit and repute enjoyed the same inheritance rights as children of a regular marriage. In the past year I was involved with others preparing a DGFHS publication on Irish Marriages in Portpatrick (sometimes referred to as the Gretna Green of the South West)  While this post is not striclty relevant to the current thread and doesn't relate to Aberdeenshire and the NEast it does relate to a particular sort of marriage irregularity which may be of interest to some.   The following describes a situation where C of S ministers took advantage of local circumstances to reinterpreted the church rules relating to marriage so as to run a small but lucrative 'business' to provide 'quick' marriages for couples who could afford the fees. Between 1759 and 1826 some 234 Irish marriages are recorded in the Portpatrick Register. Most but not all of the marriages recorded were conducted by the local C of S minister Rev. Dr. John Mackenzie during a ministry of 64 years. During the period referred to a regular packet boat ran between Portpatrick and Donaghadee on the coast of Co. Down in Ireland. The Parish Registers show how the arrangements were well organised.  Apart from the minister and session clerk, the records show how local innkeepers and masters of the packet boats, frequently appearing as witnesses to the marriages. What it doesn't show is that they shared in the fees charged but I would take that s a given.  The record further shows how a pool of other local persons of some standing, such as merchants or officials of the Excise or Customs, could be called on as witnesses.  The Rev Mackenzie’s wife and daughters are also shown to participate in his 'business'. In the earlier years of the 18th century the church’s marriage law required, apart from the need for the parties to be legally free to marry, a settlement of 40 days in the parish and the proclamation of banns three times before the congregation on consecutive sabbaths.  By the middle of the century it had become accepted practice, on payment of a higher fee, for banns to be proclaimed three times on one Sunday instead of successive Sundays and that opened one loophole to be exploited.  Another was provided by a relaxation at seaports, intended for the benefit of mariners, in the settlement rule.  In Portpatrick a couple from Ireland could, after having been proclaimed three times in an empty church, be married and back on the boat or at their inn with their certificate within an hour of landing.     The entries which appear in the parish register for Irish marriages are, in most cases, copies of the certificate which the session clerk gave to the parties and are signed by bridegroom, bride, minister and witnesses.  While the record of a local wedding occupies no more than two or three lines and would not involve the issuing of certificates, these Irish marriage, carefully and boldly written and includes all the signatures, could take up most of a page.   Whether this particular form of marriage irregularity is uneque to the South West or not I do not know.

Gavin, I'm afraid this is probably just a story, told me by my father about 50 years ago. However, I think he did claim that he had read it in a newspaper. Tony ---- Gavin Bell <g.bell@which.net> wrote: > wrentony@ntlworld.com wrote: > > > "Both consent"? I suppose that makes nonsense of one of my favourite > > stories:- > > > > Couple had been married for many years, but husband wanted out. He > > confessed to bigamy, having been married some years previous to the > > present "marriage". Present marriage was declared invalid, and > > husband jailed. Meanwhile first wife had died. Second "wife" then > > claimed marriage by repute, and this was upheld. > > > That is a good one. And I don't see that the need for consent would in > any way invalidate the constitution of a marriage "by habit and repute" > - in the nature of things, this is not an event, but a process, and is > validated largely by the general behavious of the parties over a period > of time, and their reception in the community. The man consented to the > arrangement at the outset, and I am fairly sure that a later change of > mind would be disregarded by the courts. In fact, one of the other > forms of irregular marriage "promise 'subsequently copula'" is designed > specifically to catch cheating male partners. > > But do you by any chance have chapter and verse for this story? - I'm > not seeking to cast doubt, but I would be very interested to learn the > nuts-and-bolts of it. > > For instance, a fairly basic principle of marriage is that both parties > must, at the time of the marriage, be free to marry each other (ie, over > 16, not related to each other in any of the forbidden degrees, and not > married to anyone else). > > So I would be very interested to know the relative dates of various > events, including: > > - the "husband's" abandonment of his first (presumably valid?) marriage > - the first wife's death > - the date of the second (apparently valid?) marriage > - "husband's" admission of bigamy and jailing > - declaration of marriage "by habit and repute" > > I would also be interested to know (assuming this took place post-1855) > whether and how the marriage was then registered. > > > Gavin Bell > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Does any one actually know of a couple who were married by habit and repute? Would be intersesting to hear of this. Lorraine ________________________________ From: "wrentony@ntlworld.com" <wrentony@ntlworld.com> To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 21 February, 2010 15:51:43 Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Marriage by Habit and REpute Gavin, I'm afraid this is probably just a story, told me by my father about 50 years ago.  However, I think he did claim that he had read it in a newspaper. Tony ---- Gavin Bell <g.bell@which.net> wrote: > wrentony@ntlworld.com wrote: > > > "Both consent"?  I suppose that makes nonsense of one of my favourite > > stories:- > > > > Couple had been married for many years, but husband wanted out.  He > > confessed to bigamy, having been married some years previous to the > > present "marriage".  Present marriage was declared invalid, and > > husband jailed.  Meanwhile first wife had died.  Second "wife" then > > claimed marriage by repute, and this was upheld. > > > That is a good one.  And I don't see that the need for consent would in > any way invalidate the constitution of a marriage "by habit and repute" > - in the nature of things, this is not an event, but a process, and is > validated largely by the general behavious of the parties over a period > of time, and their reception in the community.  The man consented to the > arrangement at the outset, and I am fairly sure that a later change of > mind would be disregarded by the courts.  In fact, one of the other > forms of irregular marriage "promise 'subsequently copula'" is designed > specifically to catch cheating male partners. > > But do you by any chance have chapter and verse for this story?  - I'm > not seeking to cast doubt, but I would be very interested to learn the > nuts-and-bolts of it. > > For instance, a fairly basic principle of marriage is that both parties > must, at the time of the marriage, be free to marry each other (ie, over > 16, not related to each other in any of the forbidden degrees, and not > married to anyone else). > > So I would be very interested to know the relative dates of various > events, including: > > - the "husband's" abandonment of his first (presumably valid?) marriage > - the first wife's death > - the date of the second (apparently valid?) marriage > - "husband's" admission of bigamy and jailing > - declaration of marriage "by habit and repute" > > I would also be interested to know (assuming this took place post-1855) > whether and how the marriage was then registered. > > > Gavin Bell >  > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Here's one for you: My GGGG aunt Grace MCBAIN (b. 1826 to John MCBAIN in Old Machar)  had already been married (recorded in the OPRs) in Aberdeen to a combmaker named William CUMMING: Spouse:  WILLIAM CUMMING Family   Marriage:  24 JUL 1852   Old Machar, Aberdeen, Scotland I know she and William had one kid - anyhow, it appears the two quickly parted ways but their is no record of any divorce... I could not find them together in any census - a little more sleuthing and I found Grace listed as a "Mrs. McBAIN" for the next 30 years on the Dundee census, apparently married to her cousin John MCBAIN, from 1861 to 1891. She is listed as married on the census. Then, Grace OFFICIALLY married her cousin John MCBAIN in the Church of Scotland in Dundee in 1894. She listed herself on the certificate as a "spinster"! William Cumming must have just died before that so I guess maybe she and John wanted to legitimize their "habit and repute" without having William show up and wrecking the whole thing? or maybe her first marriage never really was wrapped up ie dropped prematurely? Cam Mcbain ________________________________ From: D MCKENZIE <lor633@btinternet.com> To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 11:10:24 AM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Marriage by Habit and REpute Does any one actually know of a couple who were married by habit and repute? Would be intersesting to hear of this. Lorraine

Folks just a postscript to my long message about Habit and Repute marriages. Under Scots law no marriage could ever be legal if both parties were not free to marry at the time they entered into their union, regular or irregular. Equally no child born of the union between two people could ever be made legitimate if its parents were not free to marry at the time of its birth. So if one parent was married at the time a child was born out of wedlock, even if the parents subsequently married, that child could never be legitimate under Scots law. I think English law might be different but then it is not based on Roman Law unlike Scots law and most mainland European legal systems which all belong to the "Romano-Dutch" school of law. There are 2 exceptions. An illegitimate child could be legitimated by 1) Act of Parliament or 2) Royal Warrant from the Monarch. There is an interesting overseas example in modern times. Prince Rainier of Monaco (he who was married to Grace Kelly) was the son of the illegitimate daughter and only child of his grandfather Louis II of Monaco. Her father subsequently legitimated her so Rainier could succeed to the throne, which obviously he did. I do not understand why his son Prince Albert could not do exactly the same thing with his own son but that is for another place to discuss. Mark