On 25 July 2013 19:10, Gavin Bell <[email protected]> wrote: "… <snip> >There was another form of irregular marriage, namely "promise subsquente copula" - if a man promised that he would marry a woman, and on the basis of that promise she agreed to sleep with him, that could constitute a marriage. Although how it could be proved in a court of law is something of a puzzle. … " Sounds to me like the present requirement for "evidence of Rape" in some situations: there has to be at least four witnesses. Yeah, right! Don't forget laws are made by lawyers for lawyers to grow rich, not for the rest of us. Ever wondered why the Houses of Parliament have so many lawyers in them?? Ray Hennessy www.whatsinaname.net On 25 July 2013 19:10, Gavin Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25/07/2013 17:52, Sandy PITTENDREIGH wrote: > > ... > > Some marriages were proclaimed privately before witness. Although it > was not a requirement of law, such marriages were often confirmed by the > Sheriff at some later date. > > This only became necessary after 1855, because the legislation > introducing Civil Registration was faulty. It had assumed that all > marriages would be Kirk marriages, and consequently established no > mechanism whereby a (perfectly legal) "marriage by declaration" could be > recorded in the Civel Register. The trip to the Sheriff was the way > round this - if he was satisfied that a valid marriage had taken place, > he would issue a warrant to that effect, which would be accepted by the > Registrar. > > This second form of marriage required the couple and their witnesses to > report the marriage to the Sheriff. > > This isn't a "second form of marriage" - what the Sheriff had to > validate was generally a marriage "by declaration". > > There was another form of irregular marriage, namely "promise subsquente > copula" - if a man promised that he would marry a woman, and on the > basis of that promise she agreed to sleep with him, that could > constitute a marriage. Although how it could be proved in a court of > law is something of a puzzle. > > > Gavin Bell > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Ray, I confess ignorance of the situation in Scotland, so I am interested in your and Gavin's comments. However, the position on the other side of the channel, in the Netherlands, may give some indications of the legal position that Aberdeen may have inherited. The "promissa (or verba) de futura" was usually easy enough to prove as the couple would normally acknowledge their intentions to friends and family. The requirement of subsequent "copula carnalis" was a requirement for a valid marriage of this kind (one of three) in the Middle Ages, but by the time of the Council of Florence in 1439 it was acknowledged that although it gave marriage its sacramental and indissoluble character it was not a requirement for a valid marriage. I wonder if that did not also apply in Scotland. Can anyone point us to any authority to the effect that it was a legal requirement for validity? In any event, it was the days before contraceptives and copula carnalis was usually evidenced by pregnancy . . . The four witnesses requirement is a Muslim rule as far as I know. . Don't blame the lawyers. Blame the church! Steve On 25/07/2013 10:42 PM, Ray Hennessy wrote: > On 25 July 2013 19:10, Gavin Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > > "… <snip> >> There was another form of irregular marriage, namely "promise > subsquente copula" - if a man promised that he would marry a woman, and on > the basis of that promise she agreed to sleep with him, that > could constitute a marriage. Although how it could be proved in a court > of law is something of a puzzle. > … " > > Sounds to me like the present requirement for "evidence of Rape" in some > situations: there has to be at least four witnesses. Yeah, right! Don't > forget laws are made by lawyers for lawyers to grow rich, not for the rest > of us. Ever wondered why the Houses of Parliament have so many lawyers in > them?? > > Ray Hennessy > [the rest snipped]