----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au> To: "The Gilchrists" <cocopops2004@bigpond.com>; <AUS-VIC-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. > Hi Jackie - No sorry to be honest I have never had the need to look into > this in such detail. My VERY limited knowledge has simply been built on > over time when I come across a bit of info in conjunction with other > research plus my contact with the Law in my work - On the right side I > might add!!! > > I suggest that it would be difficult to find any specific date unless you > know a good historian and it would also very much depend on which Country > you were interested as the act of formalising took place at widely > different times in different Countries. Its one of those things that > started off in one place quietly gathering momentum and became just > "accepted" as a part of Common Law which as we know pre-dated Statute Law > until it was eventually ratified by an Act of Parliament mainly to > "formalise" what was already generally accepted anyway! I guess as even > today the illustrious leaders of the time aka Politicians aka "Nothing > much to do so lets dream up something" finally got to do something!! > > Jokes aside - as a start I might suggest you start looking around the > Reign of Henry the 8th in England. The Catholic Church back then I suggest > would not have entertained such a practice. Marriage before God was for > life and unless you could show the dead body of your late lamented Spouse > then you were still married and up the creek! however when good King Henry > decided 1 wife was not enough and broke with the Roman Catholic Church to > form the Church of England I would think that would probably be around the > time this stared to gain a toe hold. Part of the Reformation instigated by > Henry was a vast liberalising of the doctrine of Rome and I dare say there > were many Living in Sin because of broken or dysfunctional marriages who > wanted to re-marry but could not produce a body and I think would have put > Henry under a bit of pressure to include that in his program of reform > especially if the proponents were in high places and of use to the King!! > > On the other Listers point about the use of 7 Years as the measure I agree > this has been around since Adam - almost literally - and its origins are > lost in the mists of time but if I may advance a theory that it might be > related to the Christian belief of the formation of the world - 6 days of > labour and on the 7th rest? Its only a theory folks so please don't jump > on me! I have nothing to back it so if anyone has a better idea I am happy > to let you take the high ground!! > > So many of our beliefs and practices are a very curious mixture of > religious beliefs and worldly desires and compromises abound!! Take for > example Easter - This is a time to reflect on the death and resurrection > of Christ yet we celebrate with flaming Rabbits and Eggs which have > absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the death and resurrection!! If > you look back in time that part of Easter is actually a Pagan Fertility > Ritual. It was introduced to placate the last of the diehard believers in > the pre-Christian era Roman Gods to shut them up so that they would stop > tossing early Christians to the Lions - no that last bit is a joke but it > was a compromise nevertheless with what are referred to as pagans. > > Disclaimer - The preceding statement is NOT intended to promote any > particular Religion or belief not is it intended to denigrate disadvantage > or isolate any particular Religious beliefs or Practices. It is intended > simply as a possible explanation for a particular event or events. So > please before non Christians or even Christians of different persuasions > start trying to ram my house with cars loaded with explosives please > don't - OK? > > Cheers > Ron Phillips > Melbourne Vic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Gilchrists" <cocopops2004@bigpond.com> > To: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au>; <AUS-VIC-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 11:59 PM > Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. > > >> Hi Ron >> Any idea when the PRESUMPTION OF DEATH criteria was introduced? >> >> Do you know what sort of a paper trail I'd need to follow to learn more? >> I'd >> imagine a Stat Dec would have been one requirement. >> >> TIA >> >> Jackie in Brisbane. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au> >> To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:11 PM >> Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. >> >> >> | Err ... Folks I never said dead I said PRESUMED dead. I agree they >> didn't >> | necessarily have to actually be dead probably most weren't!! >> | >> | Those of us who have passed through the rights of a church marriage >> will >> | recall the oath "... till death do us part...". >> | >> | The Church's view was that death was the ONLY permissible reason to >> dissolve >> | a marriage and allow a person to re-marry without incurring the wrath >> of >> | God. Its transition to statute law was tempered by necessity and thus a >> | PRESUMPTION of death was introduced as a compromise between the >> Church's >> | teaching about Divorce and the recognition that life must go on. >> However >> | again the Church imposed rigid conditions on its introduction. I am >> sure >> | none of the Church Officials were fooled for a minute that the missing >> | partner was actually dead but as long as the Church could legitimately >> say >> | with hand on heart that it BELIEVED it so then a dissolution of >> marriage >> was >> | permissible. >> | >> | The Church clearly could not allow or grant a dissolution of a marriage >> | without compromising its own teachings if both the partners were >> clearly >> | still at large and visible in society or were known to be alive and >> kicking >> | be they in the Colony or overseas. To do so would then be a Divorce >> which >> | was not permitted rather then a dissolution which was. Thus by the >> partners >> | having absolutely no sight of each other or any other form of contact >> of >> any >> | kind either directly or indirectly then it was accepted that the >> missing >> | partner must be deceased otherwise why would a loving partner not make >> | contact with their spouse? Thus the 'surviving' partner was considered >> a >> | Widow or Widower and could re-marry without incurring the wrath of the >> | Church. >> | >> | I also agree the separation of water for 7 years was also grounds for a >> | dissolution but this also as with the absence clause above carried with >> it >> a >> | prerequisite of no contact of any kind whatsoever during that period >> which >> | again is another convenient way of presuming death and thus freeing the >> | partners to re-marry. >> | >> | I hope we don't get down to a discussion on the finer points of Law - >> we >> | could be here forever! One cannot be pedantic over interpretations of >> Law >> | (even today) and we must remain flexible in interpreting perhaps what >> was >> | INTENDED not necessarily what was actually stated in the statute books. >> | >> | Cheers >> | Ron Phillips >> | Melbourne Vic >> | >> | >> | >> | >> | >> | ----- Original Message ----- >> | From: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au> >> | To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> >> | Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:02 PM >> | Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. >> | >> | >> | > 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 >> | >> >> | > >> | > >> | > ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> | > Support RootsWeb and help it support genealogy >> | > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html >> | > >> | >> | >> | ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> | Threaded archives at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/aus-vic-goldfields >> | >> >