When could a marriage be annulled in the Regency?

The Wedding from The Dance of Death by T Rowlandson (1816)
Wellcome Collection used under Creative Commons Licence (CC BY 4.0)

I was recently asked whether non-consummation was the only reason a marriage could be annulled in the Regency era. It is a misunderstanding I have come across before.

A valid marriage could not be annulled just because it had not been consummated.

Impotency was grounds for annulment, but this was rarely claimed. Scroll down to the end of the post to see why.

In this post, I look at:

• What an annulment was and how it differed from divorce.

• When a marriage could be annulled.

What was an annulment?

An annulment of a marriage was, quite literally, reducing it to nothing. The marriage was declared invalid, and it was as if the marriage had never been.

The impact on the children of an annulled marriage was enormous. If a marriage was annulled, any children of that marriage were declared illegitimate.

It is really important to understand how this differs from divorce. If a titled couple divorced, the eldest son of that marriage was still the heir. If the marriage was annulled, the eldest son of that marriage would now be illegitimate and not able to inherit his father’s title and the estates that went with it.

When could a marriage be annulled?

A marriage could be annulled if it was void or voidable.

Void marriages

A marriage was void if it was against the law and it could be set aside.

A marriage was illegal if:

1. It was a royal marriage undertaken without the King’s consent.

   When Prince Augustus, Duke of Sussex, one of George III’s sons, married Lady Augusta Murray in 1793, he did so without the King’s permission which contravened the Royal Marriages Act of 1772. The King had the marriage set aside or annulled in August 1794.

   

   Prince Augustus, later Duke of Sussex
   from The Lady's Magazine (1792)
   

2. Either party was already married. Bigamy was against the law.

3. It wasn’t performed in the manner prescribed in Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753.

What were the requirements of this Act?

The 1753 Marriage Act stated that all marriages had to take place after the reading of the banns (a formal announcement of a couple’s intention to marry) or by common licence with the following rules:

After banns

• Banns had to be read for three Sundays before the wedding, in the parish church(es) where the bride and groom resided.

• The marriage could only take place in one of the churches where the banns were read.

Record of marriage banns for two of my ancestors at
Newington St Mary in 1855. Both were minors and though
the banns were read, there must have been some difficulty as
the couple did not marry until 1856, after the
banns had been read again in St Mary Lambeth.

Or by common licence

• The marriage could only take place in the church of the parish where either bride or groom had resided for at least four weeks, as stated on the licence.₁

• If either party was under 21 years of age and previously unmarried, they had to have parental consent for the marriage.

The marriage had to be witnessed by two people in addition to the minister and entered in the register.

The rules did not apply to:

• Those marrying by special licence (although parental consent was still required if either party was underage)

• Scotland

• Jews or Quakers

• The royal family

You can read more about Hardwicke’s 1753 Marriage Act here.

All marriages except those by special licence had to take
place in the parish church of bride or groom.
This is St Nicholas, Steventon, Hampshire, where
Jane Austen's father was once rector.

The residency requirement

One interesting thing to note is that the Act specifically prevented a marriage from being overturned if it was later found that the residency requirement had not been met.

Parental consent

A parent or guardian could not overturn a marriage by banns of underage parties that had taken place without their consent. They could prevent the banns being read, but they could not later have the marriage annulled.

Marriage by licence was a different matter. If the person applying for the licence had lied about receiving parental consent, the marriage was technically void. But—and it’s a big but—would the non-consenting parent want to set the marriage aside?

I think this is probably where the misunderstanding about annulment and the non-consummation of the marriage comes in.

Prior to the 1823 Marriage Act, someone had to take out a bond for a large sum of money which would be forfeit if it was later proved that the person applying for the licence had been lying.₂ I have learned that very few bonds were forfeited, which suggests that in most cases, parents who had not given their consent were forced to accept the marriage in an effort to avoid scandal.

If the spouse was particularly undesirable or there was a lot of money involved, the non-consenting parent might demand an annulment. But if the marriage had already been consummated, it was less likely, particularly if it was the bride who was underage, as she would be ruined.  

You can read more about marriage of minors in the Regency here. 

An illegal marriage

Marriages did get declared illegal. Actress Harriot Mellon married wealthy banker Thomas Coutts at St Pancras Church on 18 January 1815. His family was furious, and investigated the validity of the marriage. In March 1815 an entry in the marriage register declared the ceremony illegal. No reason was given, but perhaps the second witness was added later. The couple were forced to remarry at St Pancras on 12 April.

Harriot, Duchess of St Albans (née Mellon; previous name Coutts)
from Memoirs of Harriot, Duchess of St Albans
by Mrs Cornwell Baron-Wilson (1840) and Thomas Coutts
from Life of Thomas Coutts by EH Coleridge (1920)

Voidable marriages

There was another category of marriage that could be annulled. These marriages were not automatically void, but voidable.

The Church of England had a table of kindred and affinity that prohibited marriages between people who were closely related. The list included the prohibition to marry a spouse’s sibling.

You can read more about this in an earlier post of mine here.

It should be noted that marriage between cousins was—and still is in the UK—allowed.

These marriages were voidable, but valid if unchallenged during the lifetime of the parties ie once one party had died, the marriage could no longer be overturned.

Consenting parties

A marriage had to be between consenting parties and could be annulled if either party did not know what they were doing, because of age or insanity.

The marriage between John Wallop, 3rd Earl of Portsmouth, and his solicitor’s daughter, Mary Anne Hanson, took place in 1814. After a lengthy enquiry, it was established that the earl had been insane since 1809, and the marriage was annulled in 1828.

Could a marriage be annulled on the grounds of impotency?

Theoretically, a marriage could be annulled on the grounds of impotency, but this was extremely rare. A woman had to prove her virginity, and if a man later fathered a child, the annulment could be overturned.

The inability to consummate the marriage was, however, a valid reason for annulment if a woman were deceived into marrying another woman, or she discovered she had married a eunuch.

Rachel Knowles writes clean/Christian Regency era romance and historical non-fiction. She has been sharing her research on this blog since 2011. Rachel lives in the beautiful Georgian seaside town of Weymouth, Dorset, on the south coast of England, with her husband, Andrew.

Find out more about Rachel's books and sign up for her newsletter here.

If you have enjoyed this blog and want to encourage me and help me to keep making my research freely available, please buy me a virtual cup of coffee by clicking the button below.

Notes

1. Some of the stipulations changed in the Marriage Act of 1823, which affected marriages after 1 November 1823. The residency requirement was reduced to 15 days.

2. After 1 November 1823, either bride or groom had to appear in person to apply for a licence, and bonds were no longer required.

Sources used include:

An Act for amending the Laws respecting the Solemnization of Marriages in England (18th July 1823)
An Act for the better preventing of clandestine Marriages (1753)
Familysearch.org website
Foreman, Amanda, The Heartbreaking History of Divorce (Smithsonian Magazine, 2014)
Lambeth Palace Research guide

Marriage of minors in Regency England

Detail from Merton College, Oxford: a marriage ceremony
 in the chapel by J Bluck (1813) after AC Pugin
Wellcome Collection used under Creative Commons Licence (CC BY 4.0)

If a young lady or gentleman wanted to get married in Regency England while they were a minor, that is before they came ‘of age’, they needed the permission of their parent or guardian.

When did a Regency person come ‘of age’?

The age of majority during the Regency was 21 years old. It was only reduced to the age of 18 relatively recently, in 1970.

Was parental permission always necessary?

Parental permission for the marriage of minors was required for all weddings in England except where the underage party had been married before.

Marriage by licence

To obtain either a common marriage licence or a special licence for the marriage of underage persons, permission was required from a parent or guardian of each underage person. Either party to the wedding or a third party had to give a sworn statement that this permission had been given before the licence could be granted.

If they lied about having parental consent, the marriage could be set aside.

Marriage by banns

The dance of death: the wedding by T Rowlandson (1816)
Wellcome Collection
Used under Creative Commons Licence (CC BY 4.0)

Explicit permission was NOT required for the banns to be read, but a parent or guardian of a previously unmarried underage party could forbid the banns. As banns had to be read out over three Sundays in the parish church that the couple attended, or in both parish churches if the couple were from different parishes, it was deemed that the parents or guardians had plenty of time to object to the marriage if they wanted to. If they did not forbid the banns, they could not later object to the marriage.

It would appear, however, that some unscrupulous persons tried to ignore this if it was in their interests to do so.

Ackermann’s Repository (January 1815) reported the sad case of Elizabeth Chandler, the daughter of a respectable tradesman:

Four years since, I became acquainted with John P –; we walked out together, we sat next to each other at every holiday meeting, and, in short, I soon began to have a particular affection for him; and as he was constantly at our house, I always treated him as the man who would become one day my loving husband. This, sir, at length was realized, and this day month I uttered the vow, which he also pronounced at the same altar, to cherish each other till death should us part. 

For a whole fortnight did we live, at least if I may judge of his feelings by my own, as happy as sincere love could make us: at the end of this period, however, I began to endure what I have ever since felt, the torments of love unreturned, and a character blasted for ever. 

After the short moments of a fortnight’s joy, he left me, as he said, but for a day, nor could I have believed it to be in the nature of man to be so perjured, if he at that time mean ever to return again. For three days, agony, suspense, and dread racked my frame. I wrote, I followed to the place whither he intended to go: alas! He was denied to me, and though fainting at the door, from the opprobrious terms his friends lavished on me, he came not to comfort her, who had, for him, given up what she supposed the rites of the church had warranted.1

Elizabeth’s husband wrote her a letter, telling her:

I have left you then for ever, for my friends insist upon it, that I must see you no more. My uncle Palmer, on whom you know I depend, has declared, unless our match be set on one aside, he will never see me no more; and you know, you have no fortune, and, if you love me, you cannot wish I should starve. It appears, although I did not know it myself, that I am six months under age, and I find, by the law of the land, I cannot marry. If, however, you should have a child, we will maintain it. I am very sorry, but what can I do? They have sent me to a place which I must not tell you of. In hopes you will bear this with becoming fortitude, I take my leave of you forever. So no more at present from your once loving husband, John P –.2

Elizabeth was distraught and wrote:

His cruel parents are determined to part us, and my poor incensed and less powerful parents can only mingle their tears with mine. They say the bans thrice put up, the solemnization in every particular, will avail me nothing; my husband being a minor is yet no husband to me – wretched, wretched girl!3

The writer of the article, Scriblerus, was deeply moved.

I conjure, therefore, the legal correspondents of the Repository, to exert themselves in behalf of this, perhaps not the last instance of female credulity and male baseness; and through the medium of the next number, point out some remedy to restore an unfortunate female to her peace of mind and respectability of character.4

The following issue published a story of Mary F – r, a lady who had married an underage man after banns who wished to get out of her marriage because of her ‘husband’s cruelty, and infamous behaviour of every description.’5

This woman wrote:

I was told, and am still told, that his being a minor will avail me nothing, as the bans were regularly put up. If what the unfortunate Elizabeth states be the fact, in the broad meaning of the assertion, surely I could as well take advantage of my husband’s minority, as in her case the husband or his friends could. Surely a man ought not to be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong-doings, to leave an innocent and injured woman; when, if that woman wished to do so, from his cruelties or other bad behaviour, she should be shut out from the same remedy.6

In April, Scriblerus published a response:

Johannes Scriblerus feels happy in informing his readers, that the case represented in … January has been answered by several legal gentlemen, who have given as their opinions, that the regular publication of bans stamps a marriage with legality. Elizabeth P – is, consequently, to all intents and purposes, the wife of John P –, although the marriage took place while he was a minor. Of course, according to this decision, our fair correspondent, Mary F – r, cannot withdraw herself from those engagements from which she has such reason to desire a release.7

Runaway marriages

Smuggling Out or Starting for Gretna Green
by Rowlandson & Schutz
Published by Ackermann (1789)
DP872184 from Metropolitan Museum of Art

No parental consent was required for the marriage of underage persons in Scotland. As a result, couples ran away to the border to get married, at places like Gretna Green, if they did not have the consent of the underage person’s parent or guardian. As this was an expensive business, it usually meant that there was a fortune involved.

You can read more about Gretna Green marriages here.

You can read more about marriage in the Regency here.

Rachel Knowles writes clean/Christian Regency era romance and historical non-fiction. She has been sharing her research on this blog since 2011. Rachel lives in the beautiful Georgian seaside town of Weymouth, Dorset, on the south coast of England, with her husband, Andrew.

Find out more about Rachel's books and sign up for her newsletter here.

If you have enjoyed this blog and want to encourage me and help me to keep making my research freely available, please buy me a virtual cup of coffee by clicking the button below.

Notes

1. Ackermann, Rudolph, The Repository of Arts, Literature, Commerce, Manufactures, Fashions and Politics (January 1815)

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ackermann, Rudolph, The Repository of Arts, Literature, Commerce, Manufactures, Fashions and Politics (February 1815)

6. Ibid.

7. Ackermann, Rudolph, The Repository of Arts, Literature, Commerce, Manufactures, Fashions and Politics (April 1815)

Sources used include:

Ackermann, Rudolph, The Repository of Arts, Literature, Commerce, Manufactures, Fashions and Politics (Various)

An Act for the better preventing of clandestine Marriages (1753)

Could a Regency widower marry his wife's sister?

A fashionable wedding at St George's Hanover Square
in 1841 from Life In Regency and Early 
Victorian Times by EB Chancellor (1926)

I started investigating this question because I came across a blog post saying it was illegal for a man to marry his dead wife’s sister. Yet I knew from my research for What Regency Women Did For Us that Maria Edgeworth’s father had married his wife’s sister after his wife had died. Had the marriage been illegal or was I missing something?

The short answer

During the Regency period, the marriage between a widower and his wife’s sister, or between a widow and her husband’s brother, was valid but voidable. It was forbidden under ecclesiastical law but not illegal until the passing of the Marriage Act in 1835. It could be voided or annulled if successfully challenged by any interested party, at any time during the marriage, provided both husband and wife were still alive. 

The long answer

Forbidden Marriages

According to ecclesiastical law, a widower could not marry his wife’s sister and a widow could not marry her husband’s brother as these marriages were ‘within the prohibited degrees.’

These ‘marriages within the prohibited degrees’ were based on those marriages forbidden in the Bible and were laid out in A Table of Kindred and Affinity in The Book of Common Prayer (1662).1

A man may not marry his:

1. Grandmother

2. Grandfather’s wife

3. Wife’s grandmother

4. Father’s sister

5. Mother’s sister

6. Father’s brother’s wife

7. Mother’s brother’s wife

8. Wife’s father’s sister

9. Wife’s mother’s sister

10. Mother

11. Stepmother

12. Wife’s mother

13. Daughter

14. Wife’s daughter

15. Son’s wife

16. Sister

17. Wife’s sister

18. Brother’s wife

19. Son’s daughter

20. Daughter’s daughter

21. Son’s son’s wife

22. Daughter’s son’s wife

23. Wife’s son’s daughter

24. Wife’s daughter’s daughter

25. Brother’s daughter

26. Sister’s daughter

27. Brother’s son’s wife

28. Sister’s son’s wife

29. Wife’s brother’s daughter

30. Wife’s sister’s daughter

A woman may not marry her:

1. Grandfather

2. Grandmother’s husband

3. Husband’s grandfather

4. Father’s brother

5. Mother’s brother

6. Father’s sister’s husband

7. Mother’s sister’s husband

8. Husband’s father’s brother

9. Husband’s mother’s brother

10. Father

11. Stepfather

12. Husband’s father

13. Son

14. Husband’s son

15. Daughter’s husband

16. Brother

17. Husband’s brother

18. Sister’s husband

19. Son’s son

20. Daughter’s son

21. Son’s daughter’s husband

22. Daughter’s daughter’s husband

23. Husband’s son’s son

24. Husband’s daughter’s son

25. Brother’s son

26. Sister’s son

27. Brother’s daughter’s husband

28. Sister’s daughter’s husband

29. Husband’s brother’s son

30. Husband’s sister’s son

This is hard work to digest! Put simply, there were three groups of people a man could not marry:

1. Close blood relations: grandmother, mother, aunt, sister, daughter, niece, granddaughter.

2. The wife of the male equivalents of these relations: grandfather’s wife, father’s wife, uncle’s wife, brother’s wife, son’s wife, nephew’s wife, grandson’s wife.

3. Close blood relations (as in 1 above) of your wife.

Similarly, a woman could not marry:

1. Close blood relations: grandfather, father, uncle, brother, son, nephew, grandson.

2. The husband of the female equivalents of these relations: grandmother’s husband, mother’s husband, aunt’s husband, sister’s husband, daughter’s husband, niece’s husband, granddaughter’s husband.

3. Close blood relations (as in 1 above) of your husband.

Mourning full or opera dress
from La Belle Assemblée (1806)

The problem of not being able to marry your dead wife’s sister

The problem was that the sister of a deceased wife was often the most suitable person to help look after the widower’s children, but she could not live as a single woman in her brother-in-law’s house without risk of scandal and she could not marry him because ecclesiastical law forbade it.

Not everyone thought that this restriction was right. John Fry argued that marriage with a deceased wife’s sister was both fit and convenient in The Case of Marriage between Near Kindred (1756).

It was a problem that only affected the upper classes of society. In a debate on the law of marriage – prohibited degrees - in the House of Commons in 1847, Stuart Wortley stated:

As to the lower orders of society, they are quite incapable of comprehending the considerations of refined delicacy on which the law has been defended; and during an inquiry which lasted for more than two months I did not meet with one man or woman in humble life who considered marriage with a deceased wife's sister improper.2

Valid but voidable

Though forbidden by ecclesiastical law, if a marriage within the prohibited degrees took place – assuming a member of the clergy was willing to marry them – it was valid unless successfully challenged by an interested party while both marriage partners were alive.

In the debate in the House of Commons in 1847, it was recorded:

It was well known that, before the Act of 1835, marriages within the prohibited degrees, and among them marriages of men with sisters of their deceased wives, were not actually void, but merely voidable.3

Before the 1835 Marriage Act, marriages within the prohibited degrees were constantly at risk of being voided. This was obviously a big deal where children were concerned as if the marriage were voided, it made them illegitimate and could rob them of their inheritance. The only time limit on such a challenge seemed to be that both parties were still alive. 

Examples of voidable marriages that were valid

Richard Lovell Edgeworth, author (1744-1817)

Richard Lovell Edgeworth
from Memoirs of Richard Lovell Edgeworth (1821)

The author, Maria Edgeworth, had three stepmothers and two of them were sisters. Her own mother died in 1773 when Maria was five and her father remarried, in the same year, to Honora Sneyd. When Honora died in 1780, Richard Lovell Edgeworth very promptly married Honora’s sister Elizabeth. The marriage took place after banns and went unchallenged. Elizabeth died in 1797 and Maria’s father promptly took a fourth wife, Frances Beaufort (who was younger than Maria).

Matthew Boulton, manufacturer and entrepreneur (1728-1809)

Matthew Boulton from The Making of
Birmingham by RK Dent (1894)

Birmingham manufacturer Matthew Boulton married Mary Robinson, a distant cousin, around 1756. Mary died, childless, within a few years of their marriage. About ten years later, Matthew married Mary’s younger sister Anne, although Anne’s brother was against the match.

Rear Admiral Charles Austen (1779-1852)

Jane Austen’s brother Charles married Frances Palmer in 1807. He married Frances’s sister Harriet in 1820, after Frances’s death.

The 1835 Marriage Act

The 1835 Marriage Act sought to remove the uncertainty over whether a voidable marriage would at some point become void. I was fascinated to read that the original intention of the Bill had simply been just that – to set a time limit on challenging a marriage within the prohibited degrees so that the children did not live in fear of their parents’ marriage being overturned.

What was proposed was that all existing marriages of people within the prohibited degrees should be questioned within six months of the Act and new marriages within two years of the date of the marriage.4

At some point during the debate, the terms were changed making all the existing marriages legal and all subsequent marriages void.

Marriage abroad

After the 1835 Act had been passed, the only legal way for a widower to marry his wife’s sister was to go abroad. It was generally believed this would be valid, although such marriages were still frowned upon by many.

The law of this country recognised a marriage as valid if solemnized according to the law of the place where it occurred; and, consequently, unless the Statute of 1835 constituted a personal incapacity-—as some contended, but as, he thought, it did not —a marriage solemnized abroad might effectually evade the law.5

A long battle for a change in the law

The Marriage to a Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill was first introduced in 1842 and was repeatedly raised in Parliament during the Victorian period, but it was not until 1907 that a man could marry his deceased wife’s sister. It was not until 1921 that the female equivalent was allowed, in the Deceased Brother’s Widow’s Marriage Act.

Rachel Knowles writes clean/Christian Regency era romance and historical non-fiction. She has been sharing her research on this blog since 2011. Rachel lives in the beautiful Georgian seaside town of Weymouth, Dorset, on the south coast of England, with her husband, Andrew.

Find out more about Rachel's books and sign up for her newsletter here.

If you have enjoyed this blog and want to encourage me and help me to keep making my research freely available, please buy me a virtual cup of coffee by clicking the button below.

 

Notes

1. The list appears on the last page of John Baskerville’s 1762 reprint of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

2. Law of marriage – prohibited degrees Hansard 13 May 1847 Commons Sitting

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

Sources used include:

Bailey, Martha, The Marriage Law of Jane Austen’s World, JASNA Volume 36, 1 Winter 2015

Book of Common Prayer (1662) republished 1762

Family Search website, Staffordshire Church Records

Hansard, Law of marriage – prohibited degrees Hansard 13 May 1847 Commons Sitting

Knowles, Rachel, What Regency Women Did For Us (2017)

Tann, Jennifer, Boulton, Matthew (1728-1809) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn May 2007, accessed 5 Oct 2012)

Banns, licences and Hardwicke's Marriage Act - a Regency History guide to marriage in Georgian England

St George's Hanover Square - the most
fashionable church in Regency London

The Marriage Act (1753)

Marriages in late Georgian England were governed by Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753 which came into force on 25 March 1754 – an Act designed for ‘the better preventing of clandestine Marriages’.1

Although marriages usually took place in parish churches prior to this, it was possible to circumvent the system and get married in secret at places like the Fleet prison and St George’s Chapel, Mayfair.

The 1753 Act stated that all marriages in England had to take place in a parish church or chapel, either after banns or by licence, unless under special licence. The law did not apply to members of the royal family. Nor did it apply to Jews and Quakers, but no concessions were made for other non-Conformists. 

There was a rush to get married before the Act came into force and the registers of St George’s Chapel state that 1,136 marriages took place between October 1753 and March 1754 including 61 on the 24 March 1754.

Mayfair Chapel in 1761
from Mayfair and Belgravia by G Clinch (1892)

Marriage by banns

Banns were a formal way of announcing the couple’s intention to marry. The Banns of Matrimony had to be read out, in a prescribed format, for three Sundays prior to the wedding in the parish church or chapel that the couple attended, or in both parish churches or chapels if the couple were from different parishes. The couple had to give seven days’ notice to the minister of each church before the first reading of the banns, and provide details of their names, where they lived and how long they had lived there for.

If either of the couple were under the age of 21 years and previously unmarried, then a parent or guardian of the underage party could forbid the banns. However, if they failed to object at the time the banns were read, they could not later object to the marriage.

The marriage ceremony could only take place at one of the places where the banns were read. It had to be witnessed by two people in addition to the minister taking the ceremony, and the marriage register had to be signed by the minister, the witnesses and the two parties getting married.

This was by far the most common way of getting married.
 

Entries in the marriage register of St George's Hanover Square from 18-28 July 1811
 illustrating the fact that most marriages were by banns.  All the entries are by
banns except the one marked licence.2

Marriage by common licence

Sometimes it was not convenient to wait for the banns to be read, for example if the bride was pregnant, and it was possible to get married more quickly by applying for a common licence. This was available from a bishop or archbishop and their offices.

Before the licence could be issued, one of the couple or someone acting on their behalf had to submit a sworn statement or allegation that there was no impediment of kindred or alliance to the marriage, and if one or both parties were underage and previously unmarried, that they had the consent of their parent or guardian. There was also a requirement for the groom or someone acting on his behalf to enter a bond where a substantial amount of money would be forfeited if an impediment existed.

The marriage had to take place in the church or chapel of the parish where one of the couple had been residing for at least four weeks. As with banns, the wedding had to take place in front of two witnesses who signed the register along with the minster and the couple.

Entry in the marriage register of St George's Hanover Square for a
marriage by licence in 1815. This example is for the marriage of a
 minor and states that her father's consent had been obtained.

Special licence

The only legal way to be married in a place other than a parish church or chapel after banns or by licence was to be married by special licence. This was a much rarer and more expensive type of licence than a common licence and could only be issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury. A special licence still required an allegation that there was no impediment of kindred or alliance to the marriage, and that the consent of a parent or guardian for underage parties had been given, but it enabled a couple to get married anytime and anywhere, such as in the private chapel of their home.

Entry in the marriage register of St George's Hanover Square for a marriage by
special licence in 1811. This example states where the marriage took place
and that the underage bride's guardians had given consent.

1823 Marriage Act

Hardwicke’s Marriage Act was amended several times, most importantly by the Act of July 1823. The new stipulations which took effect on 1 November 1823 included:
• The marriage had to take place within three months of the banns being completed or from the date the licence was granted.
• The marriage had to take place between 8 o’clock and 12 noon, unless by special licence.
• The period of residency for the granting of a licence was reduced to 15 days.
• It was no longer necessary to enter into a separate bond when applying for a licence.

Runaway marriages

Hardwicke’s Marriage Act did not apply in Scotland where it was possible to get married immediately by making declarations in front of witnesses. Underage couples could be married without the consent of parents or guardians, and there was no need to wait for the reading of the banns. As a result, many such couples fled to the border to be married, most famously to Gretna Green.

Travelling chariot at the blacksmith's shop, Gretna Green

You can read more about Gretna Green here.

Rachel Knowles writes clean/Christian Regency era romance and historical non-fiction. She has been sharing her research on this blog since 2011. Rachel lives in the beautiful Georgian seaside town of Weymouth, Dorset, on the south coast of England, with her husband, Andrew.

Find out more about Rachel's books and sign up for her newsletter here.

If you have enjoyed this blog and want to encourage me and help me to keep making my research freely available, please buy me a virtual cup of coffee by clicking the button below.

 

Notes
1. From An Act for the better preventing of clandestine Marriages (1753)
2. All quotes from the marriage registers of St George’s Hanover Square are from the transcriptions edited by John Chapman (see full details below).

Sources used include:
An Act for amending the Laws respecting the Solemnization of Marriages in England [18th July 1823]
An Act for the better preventing of clandestine Marriages (1753)
Chapman, John H (ed) The Register book of marriages belonging to the Parish of St George, Hanover Square in the County of Middlesex Vol 3 1810-1823 (1896)
Clinch, George, Mayfair and Belgravia: being an historical account of the parish of St George, Hanover Square (1892)
Familysearch.org website
Lambeth Palace Research guide

The blacksmith's shop at Gretna Green - a Regency History guide

Anvil in the main marriage room of the blacksmith's shop, Gretna Green (2015)

Where is Gretna Green?

Gretna Green is a village in the Scottish county of Dumfries and Galloway, just over the border from England.

What is so special about Gretna Green?

Gretna Green is famous for the huge number of couples who eloped there to get married. After Hardwicke’s Marriage Act came into force in 1754, couples under the age of 21 needed parental consent to get married. As this law did not apply in Scotland, couples who wanted to wed without this consent fled to the border and were married before their parents could stop them. As the first village in Scotland on the main post road from London, Gretna Green became a popular destination for eloping couples.

You can read more about why people ran away to Gretna in my earlier post: Why did Regency lovers elope to Gretna Green?

The blacksmith's shop, Gretna Green (2015)

The blacksmith’s shop

Many of the runaway couples were married over the anvil in the blacksmith’s shop. The handfasting (1) ceremony was conducted by one of the self-appointed ‘anvil priests’ who would bring his hammer down on the anvil as he completed the marriage ceremony. It was a very lucrative business. The eloping couples were typically well off and in such a hurry to get married that the anvil priest could charge a substantial fee for obliging them. Once the ceremony had taken place, the marriage was legally binding.

The main marriage room in the blacksmith's shop, Gretna Green (2015)

The anvil priests

The most famous anvil priests during the Georgian period were:

Joseph Paisley (anvil priest 1754-1814)

Joseph Paisley was an ex-tobacconist and smuggler, renowned for his strength. He became a blacksmith, but quickly recognised that it was more lucrative to marry eloping couples and became one of the first blacksmith priests in 1754. Despite becoming immensely fat and addicted to drink, he continued to conduct marriage ceremonies until his death in 1814.

David Lang (anvil priest 1792-1827)

David Lang was Paisley’s nephew. He was pressganged into the British Navy as a young man and then captured by the American pirate John Paul Jones and made part of his crew. He escaped from Jones’ ship when it was near the Solway coast, swimming to the shore near Gretna.

In 1792, he became a rival blacksmith priest and was known as Bishop Lang because of the clerical style of dress he adopted. Like his uncle, he had a reputation for drinking too much. He was the anvil priest responsible for marrying Ellen Turner to her abductor, Edward Gibbon Wakefield, in the notorious Shrigley abduction and gave evidence at the trial in 1827. He died the same year.

David Lang - picture from the blacksmith's
museum, Gretna Green (2015)

Simon Lang (anvil priest 1827-1872)

Simon Lang was David Lang’s son and took over from his father in 1827. When the number of marriages started decreasing, he supplemented his income from the wedding business with weaving and smuggling, but he continued as an anvil priest until his death in 1872.

Robert Elliot (anvil priest 1814-1840)

Robert Elliot was a farmer’s son who worked for a stagecoach company. In 1811, he married Paisley’s granddaughter, Ann Graham, in the parish church at Gretna Green. He became Paisley’s assistant in the marriage business and took over from him on his death in 1814. 

In his memoirs, Elliot claimed to have performed between 4,000 and 8,000 marriage ceremonies before he retired from the business in 1840. However, some of the other facts in his memoirs were clearly wrong, so it is hard to know how accurate this figure is and impossible to confirm one way or the other as his registers, and those of Paisley, were destroyed in a fire.

The end of runaway marriages

Travelling chariot in the museum at the blacksmith's shop, Gretna Green (2015)

In 1856, the Marriage (Scotland) Act was passed which changed the law in Scotland. At least one of the people getting married now had to live in Scotland for a minimum of 21 days before they could get married. There was still no need of parental consent for underage couples, but the residency requirement made runaway matches much less appealing as parents had plenty of time to catch their errant offspring. 

The number of eloping couples dwindled and Gretna Green’s once thriving marriage industry petered away.

The blacksmith’s shop gets a new lease of life

Sign on blacksmith's shop, Gretna Green (2015)

It is unlikely that we would be so familiar with the Gretna Green story if it wasn’t for Hugh Mackie. Back in the 1880s, he bought the Gretna estate, including the famous blacksmith’s shop, and founded the family business which still runs Gretna Green today, promoting it as a romantic tourist spot. 

The blacksmith’s shop remained a popular wedding venue until 1940 when an Act of Parliament made handfasting (1) ceremonies illegal, though some couples still liked to have a blessing over the anvil. 

Today, the blacksmith’s shop at Gretna Green is once again in high demand as a romantic place to get married with over 1000 weddings taking place there every year. Scottish law now allows couples to get married over the anvil in either a religious or civil ceremony and, since the residency requirement no longer applies (2), Gretna Green is the obvious romantic destination for eloping couples.

Arch outside the blacksmith's shop, Gretna Green (2015)

What can you see today?

The blacksmith’s shop is part museum, part wedding venue. The museum is not expensive, but when I walked into the room initially, I was somewhat disappointed. There are a number of signboards telling the Gretna Green story, together with a couple of room sets (including one with a spinning wheel set up some years ago by my mother-in-law), a few costumes and various documents displayed on the walls.

The museum at the blacksmith's shop, Gretna Green (2015)

A room depicting a household scene with a spinning wheel set up by
my mother-in-law in the blacksmith's shop museum, Gretna Green (2015)

At the end of the room is the way through to the anvil room. While we were parking our car, we saw one couple who had just been married, but by the time we were in the museum, another ceremony was already in progress. We were told that people were only allocated half hour slots!

Between weddings (there was another wedding group waiting to come in!), we had a few brief moments in the anvil room, enabling us to grab a few pictures. At this stage, I decided that the few pounds I had paid were probably worth it. After all, I had managed to see where the famous runaway weddings had taken place.

With my hand on the anvil
at the blacksmith's shop, Gretna Green (2015)

But there was more to come. Beyond the entrance to the anvil room, there were more marriage rooms, each with their own anvil. There are a lot of anvils in Gretna, both inside and out!

Another marriage room in the
blacksmith's shop, Gretna Green (2015)

And the museum continued. There was a collection of horse-drawn vehicles, including a travelling chariot (shown above), a barouche, a Brougham and a stagecoach. I was not expecting this and it was a lovely surprise.

Barouche, blacksmith's shop museum, Gretna Green (2015)

Brougham, blacksmith's shop museum, Gretna Green (2015)

Stagecoach, blacksmith's shop museum, Gretna Green (2015)

Outside, there are various shops and the newest attraction—the Courtship Maze. Not much to look at yet, but I expect it will prove to be a nice addition to the complex when the hedges are fully grown.

Entrance to Courtship Maze, Gretna Green (2015)

If you are looking for a romantic and historic venue for a wedding, what better place than Gretna Green!

Rear entrance into courtyard outside
the blacksmith's shop, Gretna Green (2015)

Rachel Knowles writes clean/Christian Regency era romance and historical non-fiction. She has been sharing her research on this blog since 2011. Rachel lives in the beautiful Georgian seaside town of Weymouth, Dorset, on the south coast of England, with her husband, Andrew.

Find out more about Rachel's books and sign up for her newsletter here.

If you have enjoyed this blog and want to encourage me and help me to keep making my research freely available, please buy me a virtual cup of coffee by clicking the button below.

 

Notes

(1) A handfasting ceremony simply required a couple to declare their intention to marry in front of witnesses and was a legal form of marriage in Scotland until 1940.

(2) The residency requirement established by the 1856 Marriage (Scotland) Act requiring at least one party to a marriage to live in Scotland for 21 days before the wedding could take place was abolished in 1977.

Sources used include:

Glasgow University website
Gretna Green website
Parliament website

All photographs © regencyhistory.net