Thanks again, Eve. Some of this I think I knew but goodness me, did some get away with near murder! Trying to sort out my almost certainly nonmarrying forebears is very difficult. I think it must have been a family tradition until the 20th century was under way, and they talk about the correctness of the Victorians. All I can say is that is most decidedly rubbish. But it does make it all very interesting, doesn't it? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Some document understanding please! > In message <002201c402a1$50f8f660$47ccfc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" > <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes > >Thank you very much Eve. Just what I needed to fill in my knowledge gap in > >this particular direction. Having already read messages mentioning > >Hardwick's marriage act, I now know about that one too and could look at > >this act, possibly, or writing upon it. I suppose it was there to counteract > >the marriage 'shops'. How long did the effect of this act last? > Until July 1837, everyone (except Quakers and Jews) had to marry in the > Church oif England, in theory in their own parish, in practice anywhere > which would rake the money.In 1837 it became possible > 1. for anyone to choose instead a register office, and > 2. for nonconformists to marry in their own chapel, or at least > denomination, but only if the pastor had registered it for marriages. > Both parties had to be (Baptists/Independents/whatever) no mixed > ,marriages allowed. > > Does it > >still pertain in any respect? > If you want a church marriage, in theory you or one of you should belong > to that parish and have been baptised CofE. Most clergy seem glad of the > trade, but you do get men of principle. > >What effect would it have upon 19th and early > >20th century and couples who > >lived together in an apparently marital union that lasted for life but were > >never officially married? > No prob unless sarky neighbours found out and chose to mock > > Presumably it would not permit either to have any > >claim on the other's estate > > That is the real difficulty. The person with money would have to specify > ' my wife or reputed wife Emma or, Emma Bloggs now residing with me' > > She could claim absolutely nothing if he died intesttae > >. What would be the responsibility for any > >children born of these unions, particularly when it came to supporting > >infants? > If the mother was wise or cynical, she either got a substantial sum > settled on her or the children at once, or she went to law to get formal > maintenance. Men had a nasty habit of dumping such ladies and offspring > when she neared 40. (Ore 1834, the parish handled the case, post 1834, > the Guardians might bring pressure, but basically it was up to the > woman.) Best to catch the man while he was still in touch or in fairly > responsive mode. > > > >Sorry to put so many questions to you. Perhaps a pointer to a good book > >would be more appropriate? > Annals of the Poor: Illegitimacy McL guides > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >