I have found the marriage of William Fleatham (bachelor) and Elizabeth Kidd (widow) on September 3 1746. The details indicate that it was a Clandestine Marriage and was held at The Fleet. There are no details of any family, or age, or witnesses. William's family were Quakers but I do not know anything about Elizabeth's family and do not know if Kidd is her maiden name or her married name. I have googled about Clandestine marriages and also about marriages at The Fleet - which if I am correct was the prison. None of the items I have read are really basic, so could someone please confirm that I am correct in saying that anyone could get married at the fleet, whether it was because they didn't want to wait for bans to be called in a church , or they were away from their home, or there was an age issue, or maybe the bride to be was pregnant. I have yet to find anything that tells me which basket my pair fit into. But it will make things easier if I know I am on the right track. Thank you - June

"The Fleet" refers not only to the prison itself but to a quite substantial area surrounding it, known as the Rules of the Fleet or the Liberty of the Fleet. This was a kind of no-man's land, separate from the jurisdiction of the parish authorities. Prisoners who could afford it (or whose relatives and friends could) were able to move about and even lodge within this area. Most "Fleet marriages" took place, not within the prison buildings themselves but in other premises within this area, such as rooms above pubs. The celebrants tended to be rather disreputable clergy who had fallen foul of the church authorities and who found a lucrative living marrying couples without asking too many questions. Although they were described by the civil and religious establishments as "clandestine" or "irregular" because they were not carried out under the auspices of the Church of England, they were not always the hole and corner affair which you might suppose. Some couples were runaways looking for a quick hitch but by no means all. And, as you have seen, records were kept which were not significantly different from those made by the Church of England at the time. Some sources have calculated that up to half of all London marriages were "irregular" by the time in question. This may be a bit of an exaggeration but there is no doubt that many couples for whom there was no particular barrier to a "regular" marriage chose this option for reasons of economy, speed and fashion. The best analogy is to think of modern-day marriages in Las Vegas! If Elizabeth was a widow then KIDD would have been her married name. Caroline > I have found the marriage of William Fleatham (bachelor) and Elizabeth Kidd > (widow) on September 3 1746. > > The details indicate that it was a Clandestine Marriage and was held at The > Fleet. > > There are no details of any family, or age, or witnesses. > > William's family were Quakers but I do not know anything about Elizabeth's > family and do not know if Kidd is her maiden name or her married name. > > I have googled about Clandestine marriages and also about marriages at The > Fleet - which if I am correct was the prison. > > None of the items I have read are really basic, so could someone please > confirm that I am correct in saying that anyone could get married at the fleet, > whether it was because they didn't want to wait for bans to be called in a > church , or they were away from their home, or there was an age issue, or > maybe the bride to be was pregnant. I have yet to find anything that tells me > which basket my pair fit into. But it will make things easier if I know I am on > the right track. > > Thank you - June > > > >

> I have found the marriage of William Fleatham (bachelor) and Elizabeth Kidd > (widow) on September 3 1746. > > The details indicate that it was a Clandestine Marriage and was held at The > Fleet. > > There are no details of any family, or age, or witnesses. > > William's family were Quakers but I do not know anything about Elizabeth's > family and do not know if Kidd is her maiden name or her married name. > > I have googled about Clandestine marriages and also about marriages at The > Fleet - which if I am correct was the prison. > > None of the items I have read are really basic, so could someone please > confirm that I am correct in saying that anyone could get married at the > fleet, whether it was because they didn't want to wait for bans to be called > in a church , or they were away from their home, or there was an age issue, > or maybe the bride to be was pregnant. I have yet to find anything that > tells me which basket my pair fit into. But it will make things easier if I > know I am on the right track. A Quaker who wished to marry had to give notice to his meeting. They reviewed the application, slowly. They needed to be sure that he/they were free of any previous entanglements, not necessarily marriage but courting that looked to be tending that way, and if so, that the other person involved was content to relinquish claims 2. that he/they were 'walking uprightly' as regards the Meeting, well behaved, not doctrinally in contention, not in financial debt. The whole process took at least three months, more if there was any problem. And if a Quaker wanted to marry out - well, he was in real trouble. He would never get permission so the simplest thing to do was marry a 'woman of this world in a steeplehouse' and either try to get her accepted or break nright away. Marriage in the fleet was treated as dubiously legal anyway - it could be done in a flash before you thought better of it , but also repudiated if things got desperate. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society