I read recently of "cohabitants" having most of the legal rights of legally married spouses but these rights are valid only as long as the couple stay together. This now extends to same sex cohabitants. Think of the confusion for family historians in a hundred years time! In my younger days in Aberdeen "cohabitants" were known as "bidie-ins" but the term was usually applicable to women (by my mother anyway, my authority in these days) . George On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:10 PM, D MCKENZIE <lor633@btinternet.com> wrote: > 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- George Brander Torre de la Horadada España