Dear All, I have a family from Scotland who went to Steiglitz goldmining, and had several children. The woman then has children to another man . Her marriage certificate said "the above Elizabeth Rankin has been away from her former husband seven years and having obtained the advice of a Justice of the Peace, received information tha it was lawful to marry again after this period. Left her ior deceased on February 18th 1858. Has anyone had this on a Marriage certificate? Regards Chris Farrow

Sounds like the first husband shot through and after 7 years missing was presumed dead leaving the wife free to remarry. The JP's ruling was noted on the Records in case the first husband should happen to turned up again. The notation would then stop the wife from being charged with bigamy Ron Phillips Melbourne ----- Original Message ----- From: "kfarrow" <kcfarrow@bigpond.net.au> To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 6:35 PM Subject: Strange Certificates. > Dear All, I have a family from Scotland who went to Steiglitz goldmining, > and had several children. The woman then has children to another man . Her > marriage certificate said "the above Elizabeth Rankin has been away from > her former husband seven years and having obtained the advice of a Justice > of the Peace, received information tha it was lawful to marry again after > this period. Left her ior deceased on February 18th 1858. Has anyone had > this on a Marriage certificate? > Regards Chris Farrow > > > > ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== > Victorian place names database > http://www.rootsweb.com/~auswgw/vic_place_names.htm >

Marg Smith wrote: > A spouse need not be deceased before a person in the colony could marry > again. "How To Trace Your Missing Ancestors", by Janet Reakes, states: " > Divorce was not as readily available in the past as it is today..... The > Catholic Church forbade divorce almost entirely.... English law, > however, stated that if a couple were parted by water for more than > seven years, even if both parties were still alive, each would be free > to remarry and the resulting unions would not be bigamous. This is > particularly important to remember when considering Australia's convict > past." > > So, even our convicts used this law, and it was not necessarily written > on their marriage certificates. > Cheers > Marg Smith > Mardi > NSW Wasn't there also a similar provision for men missing in action during war? After the passage of a certain time, and in the absence of any identification, weren't wives free to remarry after (I think) seven years? Trevor