|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Legally Married? (Read 327 times)
|
JustKia
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1118
|
If someone uses a "different" name at the time of marriage, does that make the marriage void, or is it still legal?
Say if John SMITH married as Charles SMITH, for some unknown reason - would his marriage still be legal?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
MARLOW/JECOCK - Northamptonshire/Warwickshire : WIMBUSH/JUSTICE - Oxfordshire/Warwickshire : SCALES/BRIDGES/ENGLISH/JARMAN - Suffolk : GARRETT/GIBBS - Warwickshire : DEVOS - Scotland (Aberdeen)/France(Dunkerque) : MURRAY - Ireland(Down)/Scotland(Lochs) : TIGHE/TREACY - Cork Stanley Charles SCALES b.1899 - Where are you? *** Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
c-side
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 808
A new generation - my great grandson 11-09-09
|
I'm sure someone will come up with chapter and verse on this but as far as I know the marriage would still be valid. Lying on official forms might be illegal but it can't be used as a 'get out' later on.
Christine
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Rena
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1051
James McCarthy
|
I agree with Christine - it's a legal marriage
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Aberdeen: Findlay-Shirras,McCarthy
MidLothian: Mason,Telford,Darling,Cruikshanks,Bennett,Sime, Bell
Lanarks:Crum, Brown, MacKenzie,Cameron, Glen, Millar
Ross, Urray:Mackenzie
Moray: Findlay; Marshall/Marischell
Perthshire: Brown Ferguson
Wales: McCarthy, Thomas
England: Almond, Askin, Dodson, Harrison, Maw, McCarthy, Munford, Pye, Shearing, Smith, Smythe, Speight, Strike, Wallis/Wallace, Ward, Wells
Germany: Flamme,Ehlers, Bielstein, Germer, Mohlm, Reupke
|
|
|
nigelp
RootsChat Senior
Posts: 471
|
The answer to the question is that it depends……… 
I can’t comment on all time periods but the Courts’ interpretation of Lord Hardwicke’s Act 1753 was influenced by a presumption in favour of marriage. The onus was on the person alleging that the marriage was invalid to prove the case.
For marriages by Banns the 1753 law required that the Banns be published in the ‘true names’ of the parties (the legislation was silent on what was meant by ‘true names’). The cases of the Consistory Court and Court of Arches, however, don’t support the view that any great accuracy was required. A marriage would only be void if the difference in names was attributable to a fraudulent purpose. In general, if the name used bore no relation to the actual name or any name commonly used by the person then fraud could be inferred and no further proof was necessary. The approach was accordingly one whether either of the parties had been intentionally trying to evade the legislation and whether the marriage was one which the legislation sought to prevent.
Where the variation of a name was not significant, the Court would accept a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy to be put forward. In Sullivan v Sullivan (1818) 2 Hag. Con, 238, at 255 it was recognised that such variations might occur ‘not only from fraud, but from negligence, accident, error from unsettled orthography or other causes consistent with honesty of purpose’. If the explanation implied that the variation had been made for fraudulent purposes, ‘that fraud will decide any doubt concerning the sufficiency of the name to disguise the party.’ If a credible explanation of an innocent mistake was offered, ‘the Court will decide for the explanation and against the sufficiency of the variation to operate as a disguise where no such effect was intended’.
From the example you have provided it is difficult to know without further information what decision the Court would have reached. For example, in Dobbyn v Corneck (1813) 2 Phill. 102; 161 ER 1090 the husband had been married under the name Dobbyns and an additional Christian name had
been added to the wife’s name. Since it was regarded as impossible that any person could have been misled by the differences the marriage was valid. However, in contrast in Stanhope v Baldwin (1822) 1 Add. 93; 162 ER 33 the son of the Earl of Harrington was clearly trying to conceal the marriage when he omitted the first name by which he was known and falsely identified himself as being a labourer.
After a marriage had subsisted for a lengthy period the Court would be very reluctant to accept evidence of slight variations as evidence that the marriage was void. In Diddear v Faucit (1821) 3 Phillim. 580; 161 ER 1421 one of the wife’s Christian names had been omitted and there was uncertainty as to the true name of the husband who was an actor. The relevant surnames the Court had to consider were ‘Saville’ and ‘Faucit’ and which might be thought to be so different as not to identity the Groom correctly. However, the Court held that it was not satisfied that he was universally known by the latter name. Although there was also evidence that there was a lack of parental approval at the time of the marriage which may have been the reason behind the variation there was also evidence that the parents ultimately accepted the marriage. Since the marriage had also lasted sixteen years when the wife instituted a suit to annul the marriage the length of the relationship meant that everything would be presumed in favour of the marriage.
Nigel
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Devon - Collacott, Goss
Essex - Thorogood
Norfolk - Alcock, Bowen, Breeze, Creamer, Parnell, Sparkes, Wakefield
Northamptonshire - George, Richardson
Somerset - Barber
Wiltshire - Brine, Carey, Lywood, Musselwhite, Perris, Turner
|
|
|
JustKia
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1118
|
Interesting reading there.
This marriage, as far as I know, lasted about 20 years. The chap remarried 4 years later (first wife died) using his "normal" name.
The bride used her regularly known name, which matches her birth name also. The groom however used a totally different name and omitted his unusual middle name, although he did use his correct surname.
Seems he only used this "alternate" for a brief period of time, which included his marriage. There after on all children's baptisms and censuses he used his "normal" name.
I'd just wondered if that would cause the marriage to be void. But, if I'm understanding correctly, then as the marriage continued for some time it sounds as though it would be legal.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
MARLOW/JECOCK - Northamptonshire/Warwickshire : WIMBUSH/JUSTICE - Oxfordshire/Warwickshire : SCALES/BRIDGES/ENGLISH/JARMAN - Suffolk : GARRETT/GIBBS - Warwickshire : DEVOS - Scotland (Aberdeen)/France(Dunkerque) : MURRAY - Ireland(Down)/Scotland(Lochs) : TIGHE/TREACY - Cork Stanley Charles SCALES b.1899 - Where are you? *** Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
Little Nell
Global Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 7576
|
I would say legal.
The requirement is to give the name by which the person was known at that time.
They may have been baptised William Henry, but were always known as Harry. The marriage would still be legal, definitely not void or even voidable.
Mistakes by the clergy in entering names do not make a marriage invalid. Mistakes have been made in giving the correct order of names- but the validity has not been called into question.
Nell
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
nigelp
RootsChat Senior
Posts: 471
|
From the information provided it would seem likely that the marriage would have been held legal.
There doesn't appear to have been any fraudulent intention or intention to evade legislation by using the names concerned. The normal name by which someone was known was also accepted by the Courts as their 'true name'.
After a lengthy period the Court would also be unlikely to hold the marriage as void even if there wasn't an obvious expanation for the names used.
Nigel
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Devon - Collacott, Goss
Essex - Thorogood
Norfolk - Alcock, Bowen, Breeze, Creamer, Parnell, Sparkes, Wakefield
Northamptonshire - George, Richardson
Somerset - Barber
Wiltshire - Brine, Carey, Lywood, Musselwhite, Perris, Turner
|
|
|
Nick29
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 3477
|
In the UK, it's not illegal to use an alternative name, as long as the name change is not for the purposes of deception. So, unless John changed his name to Charles to hide the fact that he wasn't free to marry, then the marriage would be deemed to be legal.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
