I gather it is not uncommon these days for marriages to be performed over the internet; even before the internet, I believe they were sometimes carried out over the telephone or similar, though that was much rarer. I don't have any such in my tree (that I know of), but I was just entering an 18xx one into BK, which helpfully adds the record to the database for both parties (I presume most other such softwares do the same), and it occurred to me to wonder what the situation is where the two parties are at different locations - in particular, what location is to be entered! Is there a ruling that one place is the definitive location? Could this even _be_ enforced, if the parties are in different countries (or states if those have differing laws)? Not important to me (yet!), but I thought an interesting point to ponder (-:! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

"not uncommon"??? Really? I would think it would actually be _rare_ for a marriage to be performed without the two participants/betrothed being together. It seems like that would be good reason for a note in your database explaining the situation. Regards, Roy Marriott On 5/4/2015 5:42 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: > I gather it is not uncommon these days for marriages to be performed > over the internet; even before the internet, I believe they were > sometimes carried out over the telephone or similar, though that was > much rarer. > > I don't have any such in my tree (that I know of), but I was just > entering an 18xx one into BK, which helpfully adds the record to the > database for both parties (I presume most other such softwares do the > same), and it occurred to me to wonder what the situation is where the > two parties are at different locations - in particular, what location is > to be entered! > > Is there a ruling that one place is the definitive location? Could this > even _be_ enforced, if the parties are in different countries (or states > if those have differing laws)? > > Not important to me (yet!), but I thought an interesting point to ponder > (-:!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_marriage On 5/05/2015 11:54 am, Roy Marriott via wrote: > "not uncommon"??? Really? I would think it would actually be _rare_ for > a marriage to be performed without the two participants/betrothed being > together. It seems like that would be good reason for a note in your > database explaining the situation. > Regards, > Roy Marriott > > > On 5/4/2015 5:42 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: >> I gather it is not uncommon these days for marriages to be performed >> over the internet; even before the internet, I believe they were >> sometimes carried out over the telephone or similar, though that was >> much rarer. >> >> I don't have any such in my tree (that I know of), but I was just >> entering an 18xx one into BK, which helpfully adds the record to the >> database for both parties (I presume most other such softwares do the >> same), and it occurred to me to wonder what the situation is where the >> two parties are at different locations - in particular, what location is >> to be entered! >> >> Is there a ruling that one place is the definitive location? Could this >> even _be_ enforced, if the parties are in different countries (or states >> if those have differing laws)? >> >> Not important to me (yet!), but I thought an interesting point to ponder >> (-:! > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > 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 >

In message <[email protected]>, Roy Marriott via <[email protected]> writes: >"not uncommon"??? Really? I would think it would actually be _rare_ for >a marriage to be performed without the two participants/betrothed being >together. It seems like that would be good reason for a note in your >database explaining the situation. >Regards, >Roy Marriott > > >On 5/4/2015 5:42 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: >> I gather it is not uncommon these days for marriages to be performed >> over the internet; even before the internet, I believe they were >> sometimes carried out over the telephone or similar, though that was >> much rarer. [] OK, I was guilty of using a colloquialism; obviously it is still very much the exception. What I meant was, it's now known, and commoner (since the advent of Skype and similar) than it once was (I have vague memories of hearing of it done by radio, or similar, when one party is on something like an Antarctic base or something). Someone in soc.genealogy.britain where I also asked (I would have crossposted but I don't think you can with a mailing list) says "No jurisdiction in the UK allows proxy marriages but will recognise a foreign one if it was valid in the jurisdiction(s) in which it occurred and the parties were not otherwise disqualified under ENG, SCT or NIR law." I've seen it done in USA, but only in TV drama, which may not be correct. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf All that glitters has a high refractive index.