Marriages early 1800s England

cooeedownunder · Oct 14, 2009

I have been going around in circles for a bit on google, and I am wondering if there was such a thing where if someone agreed to marry someone that they would be bound by the verbal agreement?

If not, could such a contract be drawn up, that would be legally binding.

The reason why I ask is I have a charachter with no wealth of her own, who agrees to marry a self made man to keep herself and father off the streets, but when the father dies, I can see that perhaps she should logically be defiant and take her chances on the streets rather then marry someone she does not want to. But I don't want that to be an option if possible.

Another option I wonder about, which I currently have it as, can a judge order someone to marry?

Eg. I read a historical (but don't know how accurate it was) where a fellow accused of being homosexual was going to recieve the death penalty, but when a woman friend stepped forward and said she new he wasn't homosexual because she had slept with him and they were due to marry, the judge demanded they basically marry then and there to prove the claim.

So I am also wondering if a woman accused of a crime, who appears to have an an alibi on the night of that crime spending it with someone she is due to marry, if the judge could have the power to test the truth, as in the homosexual case, and bascially say marry now and prove this.

One thing I found from the Old Baily site was Recognisance: A legal document which required an individual to perform an obligation, or pay a large penalty if they failed to do so.

Steam&Ink · Oct 14, 2009

Hi cooee,

until recently, the agreement to marry someone, whether verbal or written, was a legal contract and unbreakable without a good reason. Thus an engagement indicated the legally binding relationship the two people found themselves in.

A person who agreed to marry another, and then rescinded, could be sued for non-performance of the contract. This usually resulted in damages being paid to the aggrieved party (the dumped one). Mostly it happened when a man broke off the engagement, but there's no reason why a man couldn't insist on specific performance of the engagement agreement, as in your story.

Remember though, while a verbal contract has always been (and remains) as binding as a written contract, if there are no witnesses to back up the story, it's just one person's word against the other. So in the case of a "secret engagement", most judges would have to conclude there was no provable contract (or - and here' the cynic in me speaking - the judge would have decided which party he liked better!).

PS "good reason" to break the betrothal would be the same as the reasons you could say during the "speak now or forever hold your peace" part of the marriage ceremony: one of the pair is already married, they're related, there is some false or misleading behaviour on the part of one (and this is only a good reason if what they lied about would have been important to the decisiosn to get married).

SP, who is finally putting her law degree to good use

pdr · Oct 14, 2009

Cor! Stone the Crows!

Cooee, what are you up to?

Breach of Promise was a legal action taken by a woman against a man, when she could prove that he had asked her to marry him, and then went back on his word.

Women were allowed to back out of an engagement. Men were dishonourable cads if they did so, and were sued for Breach of Promise, but a woman was allowed to 'cry off'. Read Dicken's 'Pickwick Papers' for a truly hilarious example of such a Breach of Promise case.

I am sure if a judge could find a way to make a marriage part of some court case settlement, because he thought it right, he would, but I do not know of any examples.

Oops! Crossed with s.p. Is that today's legal terms or 1800s s.p.?

cooeedownunder · Oct 14, 2009

Hey, what ya mean? I is trying to make sure my imagination can fit into the real world LOL.

k, dippidy doo, guys - yep I made that up....so is this below possible? Do you think at all possible? - I hope so cause I have written it that way

If a woman accused of a crime, appears to have an an alibi on the night of that crime spending it with someone she is due to marry - could the judge have the power to test the truth of that statement, as in the homosexual case, and bascially say marry now and prove this claim that you are to be married, which in turn proves you must have been speaking the truth about the night of the crime - after all, what gentleman would like to save a whore who apperently was off sleeping with two other fellows on the banks of the Thames the night of the crime?

Steam&Ink · Oct 14, 2009

pdr said:
Women were allowed to back out of an engagement. Men were dishonourable cads if they did so, and were sued for Breach of Promise, but a woman was allowed to 'cry off'.

Actually, this was custom, not law. Women had no more right to break the marriage agreement in law, but because men were rarely the ones who relied financially on the union (men being the earners in those times), there was generally no reason to bring the suit.

I am sure if a judge could find a way to make a marriage part of some court case settlement, because he thought it right, he would, but I do not know of any examples.

You would have to create a very unscrupulous judge indeed to have one who would insist on a marriage when one of the parties was unwilling, and had publicly stated this. We can liken this to today's "wrongful dismissal" cases in employment - the relationship between the two parties has completely soured, so insisting that they work together in the future is asking for trouble; it's more sensible to award damages.
The same goes in Breach of Promise cases concerning marriage. I'm not convinced any judge would insist on the parties marrying, as opposed to awarding damages, except in cases of "interference" (bribes).

I suppose you could go down that road, cooee, if the judge was a personal friend of the man (fiance).
In lieu of having such a judge, you could have your MC fearful of losing the last of her money, maybe some land, etc. It's unlikely the damages awarded would be too onerous if she was poor, because her fiance would not have been the one relying on her for future income.

Steam&Ink · Oct 14, 2009

cooeedownunder said:
If a woman accused of a crime, appears to have an an alibi on the night of that crime spending it with someone she is due to marry - could the judge have the power to test the truth of that statement, as in the homosexual case, and bascially say marry now and prove this claim that you are to be married, which in turn proves you must have been speaking the truth about the night of the crime - after all, what gentleman would like to save a whore who apperently was off sleeping with two other fellows on the banks of the Thames the night of the crime?

Hmmm. That would stretch the boundaries of my imagination, but it might be believable to readers not corrupted by a law degree, LOL.

What I think would be more likely is that instead of the judge saying "You must marry now, or I'll imprison you", he would say "I don't believe you. You're going to prison - unless you can prove to me that this man really was with you that night and he really is your fiance (not just someone you paid to lie for you)."
And of course the easiest thing to do to prove these things is to get married.

Hope that helps

cooeedownunder · Oct 14, 2009

Ok, my poor girl doesn't have anything, she owns nothing. But currently she is accused of being involved in a crime, where the bad fellows are saying she is their alabi on the night of the crime - and the way I see if, as they are dead ducks, so will she be....

So I currently have written that Mr Barrett, who she is engaged to, comes forwards and say it is impossible for her to have been with those other fellows that night, cause she was with him...which she wasn't - but the judge don't that.

So I am thinking the judge can say, mmmmm, if you are telling the truth Mr Barrett and were indulging in saucy behaviour with the miss here, then those fellows are obvious liars, BUT prove to me you mean what you say, and that you will place you honour now and marry this wench? Possible?

cooeedownunder · Oct 14, 2009

Ah I cross posted LOL

I see it can work...just need to change the words.

Steam&Ink · Oct 14, 2009

I don't know if this helps, cooee, but in those days a wife could not be forced to testify against her husband in a court of law (and the same the other way around).

So there were occasions where a marriage was hastily held before a court trial to stop one of the witnesses having to take the witness stand.

Don't know if you can use that, but just a thought...

cooeedownunder · Oct 14, 2009

Ah, so maybe Mr Barrett who really wants her, and has paid for her lawyers could have them suggest that if she marry Mr Barrett before that happens, he won't be forced to testify he wasn't with her?

Mmmm, you know she doesn't hate this fellow...I think she just needs a bit of pushing, but for the reader it needs to be believable.

And the above way of looking at it tells me, if he can't testify that she was with him becaues they are married, that won't help her - because the jury and judge will assume the other fellows are telling the truth.

So maybe at the end of the day, I need a bribed judge, to put the wind up her, save my plot, so I can continue on to Australia? LOL

pdr · Oct 14, 2009

Tortuous...

that's your mind, cooee!

I like the corrupt judge/ wife not testifying bit.

cooeedownunder · Oct 14, 2009

pdr said:
that's your mind, cooee!

I like the corrupt judge/ wife not testifying bit.

Hey, did you not read how I paint. Spurt out the paint, mix it up on the canvas, and hope something evolves from the black mush it often makes unless I have a big tube of white

Sirius · Oct 14, 2009

There is also ....ta dah! ... the Scottish marriage of custom and repute.

There are at least two Wilkie Collins stories which depend on the Scottish marriage of custom and repute as well as a WS Gilbert farce called Engaged! Basically, if a man and a woman who were otherwise free to marry indicated unequivocally before witnesses either that they were married or that they intended to be married and there was subsequent cohabitation (which could be evidenced by as little as someone's boots being set outside the wrong bedroom door to be cleaned in the morning) then they could be held to be legally married for all purposes. (It didn't work in England because of Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753). It was why the Gretna Green marriage by the blacksmith worked, because he was the witness in front of whom the relevant statement was made.

You didn't have to be Scottish to be caught by the Scottish marriage of custom and repute, nor did your stay in Scotland have to be of any particular duration (when I say that the WS Gilbert play involved a surveyor who kept trying to decide where the border ran, and people's marital status shifts throughout the play according to where they are standing at any given moment you'll get the picture).

Your dodgy judge or dodgy other person only has to give evidence of something Isabel may or may not have said while on Scottish soil and Bob's your uncle - at least, enough to give a major legal problem.

cooeedownunder · Oct 14, 2009

Sirus - thanks for your thoughts but gee, I can't take her to Scotland - that might need to be another story LOL

Steam&Ink · Oct 14, 2009

Ah! The Gretna Green marriage - it made Scotland a popular destination for young lovers whose parents didn't approve.

Is my memory playing tricks on me, or was there a tradition where the couple had to cross hands over the blacksmith's anvil? Do you know the meaning of that, Sirius - a superstition?

pdr · Oct 14, 2009

Ah!

Thank you, Sirius. I've finally 'got' the blacksmith part. It always puzzled me. That will do nicely for a humourous story I have to finish for a women's mag.

And trust Swenk. That man had a brilliant but totally tortuous mind. I don't think we'd remember Sullivan if it weren't for Gilbert. (Swenk was his middle name.)

cooeedownunder · Oct 14, 2009

pdr said:
And trust Swenk. That man had a brilliant but totally tortuous mind. I don't think we'd remember Sullivan if it weren't for Gilbert. (Swenk was his middle name.)

Okay, I know brilliancy needs to be proven, but only tortuous mind - did you forget and adverb or adjective?

angeliz2k · Oct 15, 2009

Just to put in my two cents, it seems odd for a judge to say "prove your alibi by marrying."

You see, just because they are willing to get married now doesn't mean they were in bed together then. All it proves is that they're willing to take voew at that moment. Nothing about their getting married would prove a damn thing about the alibi! The judge either believes that the man who says he was sleeping with the girl, or the judge doesn't believe it. Unless there are wtinesses, the proff is their testimony, and getting married now is pretty much nonsensical.

However, it WOULD make sense for the man to say he was betrothed to the girl, in order to save her honor. In which case, since he had declared to the court that he was betrothed to her, he would probably have to carry through with it. Either 1) the girl tells him that he beter go through with it (hey, now she's married and he has to support her) or 2) the judge says, 'very well, then, since you are betrothed now I expect you to be married within XX days/weeks or you will be guilty of perjury' (for saying you were betrothed).

I just can't see the logic in forcing them to marry to prove where she wasn't on a particular night.

Steam&Ink · Oct 15, 2009

Yes, I agree with that. I think the only chance would be for the judge to look as if he's not going to believe them, and so their advocate suggests they marry to make their story seem more believable.

It would be a very odd judge who would force two people to marry (might happen on Boston Legal perhaps!)

cooeedownunder · Oct 15, 2009

Interesting, and I think the bribed judge is the way to go....

angeliz2k I have found after reading a great deal of old baily sessions, that the reason why judges decided guilt was completly ridiculous - it may have fit the law of the time, but one crooks word against another who had nothing to do with the crime, did not necessarily save the fellow who was telling the truth. The entire system was madness, I think.

That said, by my limited understanding of such matters, learned by the History channel LOL our own law system today is built very much on many of the principles that come from the earliest days of the concept of crime and punishment.

Ruv Draba · Oct 15, 2009

cooeedownunder said:
I have been going around in circles for a bit on google, and I am wondering if there was such a thing where if someone agreed to marry someone that they would be bound by the verbal agreement?

If not, could such a contract be drawn up, that would be legally binding.

The reason why I ask is I have a charachter with no wealth of her own, who agrees to marry a self made man to keep herself and father off the streets, but when the father dies, I can see that perhaps she should logically be defiant and take her chances on the streets rather then marry someone she does not want to.

I'm currently reading a book by Nigel Cawthorne called The Amorous Antics of Old England. The title gives you a idea of the intended audience; there's nary a list of primary references to be seen, but the claims are very cute and I picked it up on special. It covers a period from Saxon times to the Victorian era, and doesn't always link the customs to a specific period.

A few claims by Cawthorne:

Brides and sometimes husbands were bought and sold since Saxon times;
Occasionally cuckolders had to buy wives from the cuckold in a weregeld arrangement;
Weddings were big business for clergy for much of English history, with special payments for marrying outside the custom or law of the land;
In the 1740s 6,000 weddings a year were taking place in the Fleet -- a spot known for corrupt nuptuals -- around half of London's weddings. The officiating clergy were often drunk.
Gretna Green was mentioned already, and appears to have become the 'Las Vegas' of England from around 1754 through 1856.
Personal ads for matrimony were popular from as early as 1695 through to Victorian times. (Mata Hari I believe, answered such an ad to find her husband.)
Women also advertised occasionally (and coyly), typically to huge response.
Rings were used in betrothal from at least 1622. Betrothal was a public act, and typically had a 'cool off' period of 40 days.
Betrothals in pubs were attributed in Scotland from 1869. They were public and involved eloquent protestations of love to the lady while she enjoyed a beer. Scottish courts upheld oral contracts where witnesses could attest that the parties had licked their thumbs and pressed them together.
In Yorkshire from 1887 a couple could enter into marriage with the solemn undertaking, 'If thee tak, I tak thee' -- If you become pregnant, I'll marry you. So there's implicitly a 'trial' period.
Handfasting was attributed in ecclesiastical courts of Durham, and could be dissolved after a year and a day. In some customs it could be done without loss of face; in other custom both parties had to agree.
In Wales until the 19th century, couples were allowed a 'trial night' before marriage.

But I don't want that to be an option if possible.

From Cawthorne's book and my readings on the demimonde, 'chances on the streets' pretty much meant various grades of prostitution. There's also an awful lot of very interesting organised crime in London dating from the 18th century. PM me if you're interested.

Another option I wonder about, which I currently have it as, can a judge order someone to marry?

Again, according to Cawthorne, yes. Much of the time, women were seen as property.

I am also wondering if a woman accused of a crime, who appears to have an an alibi on the night of that crime spending it with someone she is due to marry, if the judge could have the power to test the truth, as in the homosexual case, and bascially say marry now and prove this.

According to Cawthorne it was believed that a woman facing the gallows could be spared if a man was willing to marry her. Cawthorne believes this an urban legend. However, another source tells me that a woman facing execution could not be killed if she were pregnant. Women in prisons (a very different sort of prison to modern days) would sometimes pay jailors to impregnate them to avoid the gallows.

Sirius · Oct 15, 2009

cooeedownunder said:
Okay, I know brilliancy needs to be proven, but only tortuous mind - did you forget and adverb or adjective?

Given Gilbert's legal training and the frequency with which legal points - real or imagined - come up in his work (Box and Cox is about an action for breach of promise, come to think of it, as, in a twisted way, is The Mikado) I'd say his habits of thought were both tortuous and tortious.

cooeedownunder · Oct 15, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
I'm currently reading a book by Nigel Cawthorne called The Amorous Antics of Old England. The title gives you a idea of the intended audience; there's nary a list of primary references to be seen, but the claims are very cute and I picked it up on special. It covers a period from Saxon times to the Victorian era, and doesn't always link the customs to a specific period.

A few claims by Cawthorne:

Brides and sometimes husbands were bought and sold since Saxon times;

Occasionally cuckolders had to buy wives from the cuckold in a weregeld arrangement;

Weddings were big business for clergy for much of English history, with special payments for marrying outside the custom or law of the land;

In the 1740s 6,000 weddings a year were taking place in the Fleet -- a spot known for corrupt nuptuals -- around half of London's weddings. The officiating clergy were often drunk.

Gretna Green was mentioned already, and appears to have become the 'Las Vegas' of England from around 1754 through 1856.

Personal ads for matrimony were popular from as early as 1695 through to Victorian times. (Mata Hari I believe, answered such an ad to find her husband.)

Women also advertised occasionally (and coyly), typically to huge response.

Rings were used in betrothal from at least 1622. Betrothal was a public act, and typically had a 'cool off' period of 40 days.

Betrothals in pubs were attributed in Scotland from 1869. They were public and involved eloquent protestations of love to the lady while she enjoyed a beer. Scottish courts upheld oral contracts where witnesses could attest that the parties had licked their thumbs and pressed them together.

In Yorkshire from 1887 a couple could enter into marriage with the solemn undertaking, 'If thee tak, I tak thee' -- If you become pregnant, I'll marry you. So there's implicitly a 'trial' period.

Handfasting was attributed in ecclesiastical courts of Durham, and could be dissolved after a year and a day. In some customs it could be done without loss of face; in other custom both parties had to agree.

In Wales until the 19th century, couples were allowed a 'trial night' before marriage.

From Cawthorne's book and my readings on the demimonde, 'chances on the streets' pretty much meant various grades of prostitution. There's also an awful lot of very interesting organised crime in London dating from the 18th century. PM me if you're interested.

Again, according to Cawthorne, yes. Much of the time, women were seen as property.

According to Cawthorne it was believed that a woman facing the gallows could be spared if a man was willing to marry her. Cawthorne believes this an urban legend. However, another source tells me that a woman facing execution could not be killed if she were pregnant. Women in prisons (a very different sort of prison to modern days) would sometimes pay jailors to impregnate them to avoid the gallows.

Ruv Draba, thank you for taking the time. I know it must have taken a bit to get that post there, and I appreciate it.

Ah, so very, very intesting. This tells me the author, whose name I won't mention here, presented the homosexual case accurately, and hence there is no reason I can't play with a few words, and have a lawyer or judge suggest it - and even better take the suggestion of our Legal EYE - STEAMGIRL

With the women spared death penalities due to pregnancy, I think this is well document, and most certainly a truth.

What a wonderful place this is.

cooeedownunder · Oct 15, 2009

Sirius said:
Given Gilbert's legal training and the frequency with which legal points - real or imagined - come up in his work (Box and Cox is about an action for breach of promise, come to think of it, as, in a twisted way, is The Mikado) I'd say his habits of thought were both tortuous and tortious.

LOL - my comment was refering to PDR's comment about me, not Gibert or the other fellows

Tortuous...
that's your mind, cooee!

pdr · Oct 16, 2009

Ooh!

my ribs hurt.

both tortuous and tortious.

Truly Gilbertian, Sirius. Nice one.

Marriages early 1800s England

Grateful for the day

sekrit superhero

Grateful for the day

sekrit superhero

sekrit superhero

Grateful for the day

Grateful for the day

sekrit superhero

Grateful for the day

Grateful for the day

Grateful for the day

sekrit superhero

Grateful for the day

never mind the shorty

sekrit superhero

Grateful for the day

Grateful for the day

Grateful for the day