Hi Sandra When My husband and I got married we had to post Banns. This was in Victoria (Caulfield) and it wasn't last century folks!\ It was actually 1967, and three weeks before the Banns went up. No one objected then, but plenty have since! He he. Denise in Brisbane, Queensland, Beautiful one day, Perfect the Next, - Australia Searching MARRIOTT England: CRAWFORD United States/Ireland/Scotland: HALL England: SANGOR England: SIMMONDS England: HAEFFNER Germany helendmc@powerup.com.au ---------- > From: Sandra Glass <sglas@vic.bigpond.net.au> > To: AUS-VIC-GIPPSLAND-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [AUS-VIC-GIPPSLAND-L] Married by Licence > Date: Saturday, 24 July 1999 14:16 > > Hi Listers, > > Having seen the recent discussion on marriage by licence I thought I'd > contribute my two bob's worth. > Several of my ancestors were also married by licence, some of them in > church, so I don't believe that where you were married determined the need > for a licence, although you probably did need if you wer not married in a > church. > > I understand that in 18th and early19th century England it was customary for > people to be married after banns had been called, or in special > circumstances by a special licence for which they had to pay a large fee, > and which had to be obtained from a bishop. Presumably you had to satisfy > the bishop that you were not already married etc. when obtaining the special > licence. It seems to have been restricted largely to very wealthy people or > those in a particular hurry. > > Banns were much cheaper. The banns were read on 3 consecutive Sundays, > allowing objectors time to come forth, and you didn't need a licence as > well. I know banns were still read in the early years of settlement in NSW - > there are lists of convict banns - but I don't know if we used them in > Victoria. > > Certainly some of my ancestors were married by licence before compulsory > civil registration of marriages, which I believe was 1st July 1853 in > Victoria, so presumably it wasn't just civil registration that led to this > requirement. Perhaps the need for a licence was an early form of revenue > raising by our state government. This was gold rush time, and the same > government imposed the miners' licence fees that eventually led to the > Eureka Stockade. > > Perhaps someone out there knows the facts and can enlighten the rest of us > as to when it became compulsory to have a marriage licence in Victoria, and > why people would have obtained one if they didn't have to by law. Did we > ever use banns in Victoria? > > Sandra Glass > > > ==== AUS-VIC-GIPPSLAND Mailing List ==== > Check out the Gippsland Mailing List Home Page at: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~surreal/AVG/ >