Hi John I seem to remember reading on more than one occasion and source that despite Banns having not been called in the prescribed time period a subsequent marriage was deemed to be valid regardless Likewise that an underaged person who married giving false information was nonetheless deemed to be validly married I can not put my hand (or mouse <g>) on it just now but wondered if you had anything on the subject Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Yes. Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753 > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1753.htm > did not include a time limit for the validity of a Banns certificate. This was introduced by the > second Marriage Act of 1823 > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/alm1823.htm > "IX. And be it further enacted, That whenever a Marriage shall not be had within Three Months > after > the complete Publication of Banns, no Minister shall proceed to the Solemnization of the same > until > the Banns shall have been republished on Three several Sundays, in the Form and Manner prescribed > in > this Act, unless by Licence duly obtained according to the Provisions of this Act." > > and has remained at three months ever since. > > Kind regards, > John Henley

Hello Nivard, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nivard Ovington" > Hi John > > I seem to remember reading on more than one occasion and source that despite Banns having not > > been > called in the prescribed time period a subsequent marriage was deemed to be valid regardless > > Likewise that an underaged person who married giving false information was nonetheless deemed to > > be > validly married > > I can not put my hand (or mouse <g>) on it just now but wondered if you had anything on the > > subject > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) It seems a very complicated topic, even in the last 300years with which must family historians are concerned! The status of a marriage seems to be tied up with a number of technical terms - "void", "voidable" , "valid", "invalid" and so on. A marriage ceremony may be void ab initio because of technical defects some of which may vary from time to time - e.g. a man going through a ceremony with his sister (or brother!), one party under-age ( age changed in 1929), still married to previous spouse. It may be voidable - something which subsequently comes to light which enables a court to declare the marriage void [see also decrees of nullity]. It may be technically invalid through some defect - lack of parental consent, for example, failure to produce banns certificate , person conducting ceremony not a person qualified to do so [but with access to the registers] - but these are not in themselves regarded as sufficient to void the marriage, which remains "valid but irregular." Some of these points and others are specifically covered in one or more of the MArriage Acts. The general presumption in English law seemsto be that a marriage stands until decisively proved otherwise, as marriage is seen as a bedrock of society [not just the marriage per se, but the complications for inheritance. Guy Etchells, at his site below, has most if not all of the Act - worth perusing if you want to know more. Kind regards, John >> Yes. Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753 >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1753.htm >> did not include a time limit for the validity of a Banns certificate. This was introduced by the >> second Marriage Act of 1823 >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/alm1823.htm >> "IX. And be it further enacted, That whenever a Marriage shall not be had within Three Months >> after >> the complete Publication of Banns, no Minister shall proceed to the Solemnization of the same >> until >> the Banns shall have been republished on Three several Sundays, in the Form and Manner prescribed >> in >> this Act, unless by Licence duly obtained according to the Provisions of this Act." >> >> and has remained at three months ever since. >> >> Kind regards, >> John Henley > >