Hello Folks, A subscriber wrote to me on this topic 'off-list' and so I will not reveal all. However this part has me wondering more about the legality of marriage etc. during the Huguenot times. "Could they have been married secretly and have only family members record the marriage in family bibles" Many accept today that marriage is one of those double requirements. Married in both Church and State. Some believe that there is no requirement to marry with the belssings of the Church and yet the State insists that folks be "legally" married. In casting our collective minds back to the 16th and 17th century the question in my mind is.. Was there a legal requirement by the State to sign documents of marriage according to the laws of the land? If there were no such requirements at law then it is presumed that marriage was by the Church and only the Church ? As there was a time in France, and England for that matter, when there were no other religions tolerated by Church or State, then reason would suggest that if a couple, who claimed to be Protestant / Huguenot wished to become legally married, they would need to remain Romanist. If, on the other hand, they chose to "marry" according to the rights of the Huguenot faith, it would mean that under the then French law, they would not have been legally married and so the children of that union would carry that nasty "tag' commonly asociated with being born of an illegal union. Can one really tell that many of my ancestors were avocat ? In order to allow the mind to consider this puzzle, it may be necessary to remember your old high school history concerning Henry VIII of England and his wishing to marry for the second time. And so boys and girls, perhaps you can see where my current family agument is coming from ? Yes, the Huguenot members of our family "married" in varius Huguenot churches. The question is... were they legally married? And does the fact that these "marriages" were recorded in family bibles, which were Protestant, make them legal according to the laws of France at that time ? "At that time" being the operative phrase. Nit picking, perhaps ? If we are to record the marriages for the future generations who may take up this most wonderful of hobbies, then surely we must record our information accurately, or is there a need to modify current software so that an "illegal marriage" can be recorded ? This family discussion arose from trying to come to terms with why one particular family did not inherit some of the estates held at the time. Unfortunately due to some irate fisherman back in the 1990's, the immediate answer to why this family did not inherit has been lost. The records were stored in the law courts at Rennes which suffered a fire and so records were lost. NB. If you have ancestors from Bretagne, this is still a good potential source as not all was lost An uncle insists that the family did not inherit as they were not "legally married" and so the next generation of that union were not entitled as "legal heirs" Your input is of interest and it may be of even more interest to other subscribers and so responses should be via this HWE list for all to share in discussion. Kind Regards, Peter Leroy