At first I thought, "What's the big deal? These elopements could decentralize an institution of love." But then you mentioned the heightened possibility of coercion and it all hit home. The innocence of living in a healthy home and community made me forget how much social violence can take place with a simple marriage ceremony done against a person's will.
Having spent a lot of time looking at the evidence from c.1755 to 1938 I really do not think that there was much indication that irregular marriages at Gretna (or anywhere else in Scotland) were used to force a person into marriage - it might have happen but there would have been many more forced or abusive regular marriage. What might have been more feasible - but again I am not aware of any evidence - would be that a couple coupled travel to Gretna for a marriage before the blacksmith so the woman could believe it was legitimate and the man could contrive for there to be no record (the blacksmith kept a record book and issued (non legally binding) certificates in order that the woman would have sexual intercourse thinking they were married. That's possible but surely uncommon. And anyway, if that was the man's intention then he could just get married in the ordinary way and then abandon the woman as it would be unlikely that the authorities would track him down if he moved away. Violence again women was and is an enormous and shameful stain but I don't think Gretna was of any significance.
I agree with Brian. Like alcohol prohibition in the US after WW1...much of the "evidence" was imagined or invented. What it boils down to is proper people didn't think these elopements were "proper" and had to defend a girl's virtue from her own choices. Maryland was a similar destination on the East coast of the US. There was no waiting period, no blood tests (VD tests), and a simplified licence/document on the spot. Similar in Nevada for the West Coast.
I learned about Gretna Green in Jane Austin's "Pride and Prejudice". This is where Lydia Bennett thought she was going when she ran off with Mister Wickham. {spoiler} They did not actually go there
I haven't read 'Pride and Prejudice' but it certainly was possible for a dastardly chap to dupe a maiden (or indeed for a scheming actress to dupe a love-lorn heir to a Dukedom) to pretend they were heading to married bliss via Gretna for their nefarious purposes. But of course it is a plot device in a novel rather than real life. There is a lot of nonsense in a Wilkie Collins novel called Man and Wife where he condemns Scottish marriage law on the basis of his total ignorance of Scottish marriage law
@@briandempsey5749 Wickham was far to clever to get married to a young woman without fortune. That they lived together in London without being married was enough to get family and friends to provide them with an income to get them to finally marry.
@@MelissaThompson432, GH is still famously the most *accurate* regency novelist ever. The vast majority of writers who get it right have borrowed heavily from her, usually subconsciously like me.
From across the pond. I've heard references to Gretna Green in old films and even in some novels. It's one of those things you want to explore but by the nest morning after the movie or book you've forgotten and move on. Thanks for the explanation. Narragansett Bay
Well I just learned something new . I never heard of a blacksmith being the officiate of a marriage . Thank You for this interesting history lesson . CHEERS FROM CANADA
A marrage that is forced can be done by a minister as well as a blacksmith. This law was unnecessary. The real question...were ministers paid MORE to perform a wedding than blacksmiths were? No one is really tryingbto protect the man, woman or the "sanctity" of marriage. The law was about money and control.
Re: "about money and control", what else can it be about when government gets involved? After all, that is by definition what governments want, your money and to control you. Come to think of it, that is also what socioeconomic systems want.
@@jmfs8738 sugar, that's what it's all about - ministers were impoverished and thus subject to influence by powerful people who had interests that would be forwarded by forcing marriages of various vulnerable people.
Very interesting. I agree with almost all you say except the bit at the end about the 1939 Act making Scottish marriage law fit for the needs of Scottish society - there was no evidence that the availability of irregular marriage alongside regular marriage was not meeting those needs.
The many instances of naive people, often women, being lured or coerced into an irregular marriage in Gretna Green made it not just a hypothetical but a very real problem in a time when divorce was difficult to impossible to obtain. No fault divorce was not a thing until the late 1960s or early 1970s, as I recall. One of my aunts fled her physically abusive husband and was then trapped for over a decade still married to him because, since she had "abandoned" him, she could not file for divorce. As the wronged party, he was the only one who could file. What suited him was to repeatedly extort money out of my aunt by holding out the promise of a divorce if she would only give him one more lump sum (usually enough for him to live on comfortably for 1 to 3 years). After the rat strung her along this way for over a decade, her father sat her down and gently told her not to give him any more money, just to set up household with her lover and have a child with him (she was rapidly running out of time and she badly wanted a child)--no one in the family would find fault with her and no one outside the family mattered. Just as my granda foresaw, once his source of income dried up, it only took two more years for her husband to realise that he wouldn't find another woman to support him if he was still technically married and he filed for divorce.
@@GrainneDhub-ll6vw I wonder what your source for this claim about Gretna marriages is. Your point about your aunt's horrible treatment due to the sexist divorce laws is absolutely correct but it would apply to any marriage whether regular or irregular (eg marriage de praesent at Gretna) - indeed it would be easier to get away from a de praesenti marriage at Gretna than from a regular marriage as the abusive partner might have trouble proving the marriage. I ready all of the papers of the Morison Committee into irregular marriage, including all the evidence, and there was very little evidence that marriages at Gretna were any more problematic than any other means of getting married.
Yep , but being British . Without the Mafia and gambling ! :-) ( Apologizing to the Scots for calling them British , please don't come looking for me with a loaded haggis ) !
You didn't mention one aspect of this that I think is important. I read a book in the 90's called The Road to Divorce. The author said that at this time, England was the easiest place in the world to get married but the hardest to dissolve a marriage. You had to have an act of Parliament to get a divorce. He said that Scotland allowed divorce more easily, and English couples went to Gretna Green to remarry, which they could not have done in England.
Lawrence Stone's book is not always reliable on the relationship of Scots law to English law. If one or both of the English parties could not remarry in England because they were already married and were unable to get a divorce then heading to Gretna or anywhere else in Scotland to get married irregularly would be pointless - if one or both of them were already married then any purported marriage in Scotland would be as void as any such process in England.
Could it be tied to religion? Religion and government were closely intertwined at the time, weren't they? Perhaps it was about holding the vows sacred-'...till death do us part. England seemed to emphasize the religious aspect more, while Scotland maintained a clearer separation between government and religion, didn't they?
@@briandempsey5749 but I wonder if there was enough anonymity in English society that people in one of those irregular marriages could function without worrying too much about being prosecuted for it. "Anonymous" meaning that when you saw them on the streets, they weren't wearing a sign that said "remarried after divorce."
@@Harumph-Sez-Moi Yes, the particular form of Protestantism adopted in Scotland and in England no doubt influenced attitudes to marriage and divorce. Some would say that England hardly had a reformation as it kept its bishops and the smells and bells - more importantly it kept its ecclesiastical churches until the C19th whereas Scotland scrapped them from 1563.
One of Dorothy Sayers' literary characters, pre-1939, speaks - as only a proper literary English person could - of Scotland having "curious laws, particularly about marriage".
Okay - you keep using the term "Anvil Marriages", and say the marriages "were hammered out on the anvil", but never explain what exactly that means ... ?
This type of marriage was the result of Scottish law in which a full marriage was created by two people saying in front of witnesses they were married. The anvil marriage was just that in any village the blacksmith would normally always be in his smithy, and therefore be available to witness the declaration. The smithy was normally an easily found place in any village. I can't attest to the prices paid to the Smith for his services, but I doubt that this had much bearing on the decision to change the law. The real pressure was from the English who hated the Scottish tradition. Normal English traditional method of pressure based on 'you're doing something we don't like'.
@@basilpunton5702 Thanks for the additional context. What I'm really curious about is the exact meaning of marriages being "hammered out on the anvil" - is this just flamboyant imagery on the part of the script-writer, a borrowing of an historic turn of phrase, or does it refer to some "bit of flim flam or showmanship", as another poster put it, and if so, what did that consist of (e.g., the blacksmith banging on the anvil with his hammer, to conclude the proceedings)?
@@basilpunton5702 Presumably another point was that the blacksmith was considered a prosperous and respected member of the community as well (unlike the drunken louts down at the pub who might not even remember that you declared yourself married if an official witness before a magistrate was needed in the future). Also while someone mentioned deceiving the woman with a false marriage, if the man just wanted a bed partner, he usually stopped before reaching the border (as in Pride & Prejudice) since the woman is already ruined and has no way to escape him. Any abductees who made it as far as border would most definitely have been married as the purpose would have been to gain access to her dowry (without the protections that a prudent parent or guardian would get written into the marriage contract) and, in order to do that, the man has to be her husband not just her despoiler. I don't know if there's any accurate research (as opposed to anecdotal evidence) into what percentage of the anvil marriages were people who wanted to move the marriage up (pregnancy, change in circumstances, etc), people escaping parental disapproval, or abductions.
I’m sure the showmanship was around at some marriages, but it was just the presence of the blacksmith that led to such sayings. Certainly the anvil wasn’t necessary - all that was necessary was the witnesses, willing to sign as such. The change wasn’t all at once, either. There was at least one earlier law that affected Scottish marriage, but I’ve forgotten the details.
I am not sure that that is true - both Scotland and England would have had marriage allowed at 12 for girls and 14 for boys from canon law up to their respective Reformations and I am pretty sure both jurisdictions kept those ages until the Age of Marriage Act 1929 where the age was raised to 16 in both. England at some point introduced a requirement of parental consent for marriages of parties under the age of 18.
Thanks, curious about Gretna Green history after it was featured in a BBC series Waterloo Road episode where a teacher and student ran off to get married.
I remember lots of German and Dutch coming to get married here inthe 60's as in their own country they could not get married without their parents concent until they were 25 and 30 years old. I often wonder how some of them turned out?
That's so nice of you to remember and wondering how they turned out. Just a little correction here, in Germany and in the Netherlands both women and men could marry from the age of 21 without consent of their parents at that time. I love you witnessed these young couples coming to Gretna Green!
I also presume the change in law was connected with what would be World War II to prevent sham marriages for death benefits, underage marriages, possibly marriages where involved close relatives. As to the blacksmith doing them, it is possible they were allowed to do them by custom or in a central location in the town. Likely they were someone who could read and write for the paperwork.
There is no evidence that I know of to suggest that fear of people contriving to gain welfare benefits related to serving or indeed deceased soldiers was an element in the state's desire to eliminate irregular marriage in Scotland - I am 99% certain that was not mentioned in the parliamentary debates or the departmental papers though it is 20 years since I looked at them closely.
@@briandempsey5749 Also, the January 1, 1940 date makes it much less likely to have been drafted in response to any concern over WW II benefits fraud. The war in Europe didn’t start until September 1,1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Although both France and England declared war on Germany two days later on September 3, 1940. There were no substantial English combat losses prior to the German invasion of France on May 10, 1940, well after the law was enacted. There just wasn’t any WW II military death benefits fraud to protect against at the time.
In addition to irregular marriage (per verba de praesenti, per verba de futuro subsequente copula or by cohabitation with habit and repute) at Gretna or elsewhere and regular marriage (by publication of notice (banns) and conducted by a religious celebrant) there was another practice that developed esp in the big cities and that was so called marriage before the sheriff - parties could marry de praesenti and then go before the sheriff (the local judge) and confess to their failure to register their irregular marriage - their receipt for paying the small fine that was imposed upon them then served the couple as their marriage certificate (or marriage lines as ma grannie would have said).
The wheel has turned again and most couples In England, as in Scotland, no longer bother with ANY marriage ceremony, whether religious or civil. There are problems over inheritance because a vocal lobby of religious people is determined to keep unmarried couples at a disadvantage in any way they can.
Marriage is a legal contract. It is the guarantee of rights. By not marrying the couple is inherently stating that they have no interest in those rights. Probably because they have no interest in any responsibility to anyone.
@@ariadammons7069 Marriage is not a contract. It is a status. Different jurisdictions attach a great variety of rights to it, but generally the partners can not change them. That would not be true of a contract.
@@faithlesshound5621 I believe they can be changed, it just isn't worth it for most people or they don't realize prenuptial agreements can be useful in their particular situations as well.
that's just a bit of flim flam or showmanship - it had no legal significance but presumably the show meant the couple thought they were ggetting something for their money - they were in fact marrying each other by exchange of consent which they could have done anywhere in Scotland at any time in whatever company they chose.
@@briandempsey5749 One fiction book choose to interpret that as the final sizing of the couple's selection from the premade rings the blacksmith had available.
no, unless by 'official' in inverted commas you mean someone who is not in fact an official (ie a pretend official) - in a marriage at Gretna the parties were marrying each other by their declaration of present consent (per verba de praesenti) and it mattered not one jot whether the blacksmith was present or not.
Before the change in the law, an man could solemnize a marriage. A blacksmith was just a convenience, as he was usually in or near his forge and ‘open for business.’ Convenience led to tradition, and to this day you can arrange to be married in Gretna over an anvil, except the ceremony is performed by a minister or other officiant and you have to book ahead.
@@blacksmith67 that's not quite correct - any man and woman who were free to marry could marry each other and it was of no legal consequence what anyone else (eg a blacksmith or a ship captain) did in pretending to officiate - the only persons who could solemnize a marriage were ministers/priests of certain religious recognised by the state for those purposes.
It was the witnessed declaration (and consummation) that was the legal marriage. As blacksmith67 said, a blacksmith was usually always around & quickly found.
@@judithstrachan9399 no, there was and is no requirement of consummation in Scots law - and there was also no requirement for witnesses - although witnesses would make proof much easier (the marriage could be proved by other means) they were not a necessary part of getting married - all that was needed was the exchange of consent between the parties.
Among the British aristocracy marriage was all about tit!es, wealth, and power. Marriages were dynastic arrangements intended to keep that wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the aristocracy. They were arranged like business deals and marriage contracts were drawn up and signed. (What's love got to do with it?) There was supposed to be a law against forcing a woman to marry somebody she didn't want to, but the people who most frequently broke that law was the bride's own family. Up until fairly recently, marriage was not about love but was seen as a way to adance the family fortune and social standing. It was not between the bride and groom, but between their respective families. Gretna Green gave an aristocratic bride hope she could marry for love and thwart her family's pressure to marry someone she didn't want to, like a man 40 or 50 years older than she was. The race was always to catch the couple before they got to Scotland, or, failing that, before the.marriage was consumates. If the bride was under age, they could have the marriage annulled becaus e she married without permission.
Are you volunteering to do the illustrations for this channel going forward? Smaller channels don't always have the means to compose original music or commission artists. Also-- says the guy with an AI image for his avatar.
So,..... I guess that posting a comment dose not count as engaging with this post? Does that mean by ignoring what you said and still calling you unintelligent counts as valid?
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
At first I thought, "What's the big deal? These elopements could decentralize an institution of love." But then you mentioned the heightened possibility of coercion and it all hit home. The innocence of living in a healthy home and community made me forget how much social violence can take place with a simple marriage ceremony done against a person's will.
Having spent a lot of time looking at the evidence from c.1755 to 1938 I really do not think that there was much indication that irregular marriages at Gretna (or anywhere else in Scotland) were used to force a person into marriage - it might have happen but there would have been many more forced or abusive regular marriage. What might have been more feasible - but again I am not aware of any evidence - would be that a couple coupled travel to Gretna for a marriage before the blacksmith so the woman could believe it was legitimate and the man could contrive for there to be no record (the blacksmith kept a record book and issued (non legally binding) certificates in order that the woman would have sexual intercourse thinking they were married. That's possible but surely uncommon. And anyway, if that was the man's intention then he could just get married in the ordinary way and then abandon the woman as it would be unlikely that the authorities would track him down if he moved away. Violence again women was and is an enormous and shameful stain but I don't think Gretna was of any significance.
I agree with Brian. Like alcohol prohibition in the US after WW1...much of the "evidence" was imagined or invented. What it boils down to is proper people didn't think these elopements were "proper" and had to defend a girl's virtue from her own choices.
Maryland was a similar destination on the East coast of the US. There was no waiting period, no blood tests (VD tests), and a simplified licence/document on the spot. Similar in Nevada for the West Coast.
I learned about Gretna Green in Jane Austin's "Pride and Prejudice". This is where Lydia Bennett thought she was going when she ran off with Mister Wickham. {spoiler} They did not actually go there
I haven't read 'Pride and Prejudice' but it certainly was possible for a dastardly chap to dupe a maiden (or indeed for a scheming actress to dupe a love-lorn heir to a Dukedom) to pretend they were heading to married bliss via Gretna for their nefarious purposes. But of course it is a plot device in a novel rather than real life. There is a lot of nonsense in a Wilkie Collins novel called Man and Wife where he condemns Scottish marriage law on the basis of his total ignorance of Scottish marriage law
@@briandempsey5749 Wickham was far to clever to get married to a young woman without fortune. That they lived together in London without being married was enough to get family and friends to provide them with an income to get them to finally marry.
I used to read recency romances out of utter boredom in my earlier years.... Georgette Heyer; my older sister had a massive collection.
@@MelissaThompson432, GH is still famously the most *accurate* regency novelist ever.
The vast majority of writers who get it right have borrowed heavily from her, usually subconsciously like me.
@@judithstrachan9399 As result I find it hard to read regency romances by other authors
From across the pond. I've heard references to Gretna Green in old films and even in some novels. It's one of those things you want to explore but by the nest morning after the movie or book you've forgotten and move on. Thanks for the explanation. Narragansett Bay
Well I just learned something new . I never heard of a blacksmith being the officiate of a marriage . Thank You for this interesting history lesson . CHEERS FROM CANADA
A marrage that is forced can be done by a minister as well as a blacksmith. This law was unnecessary. The real question...were ministers paid MORE to perform a wedding than blacksmiths were? No one is really tryingbto protect the man, woman or the "sanctity" of marriage. The law was about money and control.
Re: "about money and control", what else can it be about when government gets involved? After all, that is by definition what governments want, your money and to control you. Come to think of it, that is also what socioeconomic systems want.
O, cut it out. Ministers earn salaries below the poverty level. They’re no threat to you.
@@jmfs8738 Joel Oldsteen?
@@scottfw7169 No your employers want to control you and use the government to do so.
@@jmfs8738 sugar, that's what it's all about - ministers were impoverished and thus subject to influence by powerful people who had interests that would be forwarded by forcing marriages of various vulnerable people.
At least two of my ancestors (Elliott) were blacksmiths there.
Very interesting. I agree with almost all you say except the bit at the end about the 1939 Act making Scottish marriage law fit for the needs of Scottish society - there was no evidence that the availability of irregular marriage alongside regular marriage was not meeting those needs.
The many instances of naive people, often women, being lured or coerced into an irregular marriage in Gretna Green made it not just a hypothetical but a very real problem in a time when divorce was difficult to impossible to obtain.
No fault divorce was not a thing until the late 1960s or early 1970s, as I recall. One of my aunts fled her physically abusive husband and was then trapped for over a decade still married to him because, since she had "abandoned" him, she could not file for divorce. As the wronged party, he was the only one who could file. What suited him was to repeatedly extort money out of my aunt by holding out the promise of a divorce if she would only give him one more lump sum (usually enough for him to live on comfortably for 1 to 3 years).
After the rat strung her along this way for over a decade, her father sat her down and gently told her not to give him any more money, just to set up household with her lover and have a child with him (she was rapidly running out of time and she badly wanted a child)--no one in the family would find fault with her and no one outside the family mattered.
Just as my granda foresaw, once his source of income dried up, it only took two more years for her husband to realise that he wouldn't find another woman to support him if he was still technically married and he filed for divorce.
Wow. I I’ve in the USA and never knew this stuff went on. God bless everyone in the UK!
@@GrainneDhub-ll6vw I wonder what your source for this claim about Gretna marriages is. Your point about your aunt's horrible treatment due to the sexist divorce laws is absolutely correct but it would apply to any marriage whether regular or irregular (eg marriage de praesent at Gretna) - indeed it would be easier to get away from a de praesenti marriage at Gretna than from a regular marriage as the abusive partner might have trouble proving the marriage. I ready all of the papers of the Morison Committee into irregular marriage, including all the evidence, and there was very little evidence that marriages at Gretna were any more problematic than any other means of getting married.
Sounds like Gretna Green was sort of a Las Vegas of the UK.
Yep , but being British . Without the Mafia and gambling ! :-)
( Apologizing to the Scots for calling them British , please don't come looking for me with a loaded haggis ) !
More correctly, Las Vegas is the Gretna Green of USA as the Scottish one came before the American one!
I visited Gretna Green and saw the blacksmith's shop. It was closed that day but you can still get married there.
As long as you obey the marriage laws. No just turning up & it’s done.
This helps "Pride and Prejudice" make so much more sense.
You didn't mention one aspect of this that I think is important. I read a book in the 90's called The Road to Divorce. The author said that at this time, England was the easiest place in the world to get married but the hardest to dissolve a marriage. You had to have an act of Parliament to get a divorce. He said that Scotland allowed divorce more easily, and English couples went to Gretna Green to remarry, which they could not have done in England.
Lawrence Stone's book is not always reliable on the relationship of Scots law to English law. If one or both of the English parties could not remarry in England because they were already married and were unable to get a divorce then heading to Gretna or anywhere else in Scotland to get married irregularly would be pointless - if one or both of them were already married then any purported marriage in Scotland would be as void as any such process in England.
Could it be tied to religion? Religion and government were closely intertwined at the time, weren't they? Perhaps it was about holding the vows sacred-'...till death do us part. England seemed to emphasize the religious aspect more, while Scotland maintained a clearer separation between government and religion, didn't they?
@@briandempsey5749 but I wonder if there was enough anonymity in English society that people in one of those irregular marriages could function without worrying too much about being prosecuted for it. "Anonymous" meaning that when you saw them on the streets, they weren't wearing a sign that said "remarried after divorce."
@@Harumph-Sez-Moi Yes, the particular form of Protestantism adopted in Scotland and in England no doubt influenced attitudes to marriage and divorce. Some would say that England hardly had a reformation as it kept its bishops and the smells and bells - more importantly it kept its ecclesiastical churches until the C19th whereas Scotland scrapped them from 1563.
One of Dorothy Sayers' literary characters, pre-1939, speaks - as only a proper literary English person could - of Scotland having "curious laws, particularly about marriage".
Okay - you keep using the term "Anvil Marriages", and say the marriages "were hammered out on the anvil", but never explain what exactly that means ... ?
This type of marriage was the result of Scottish law in which a full marriage was created by two people saying in front of witnesses they were married.
The anvil marriage was just that in any village the blacksmith would normally always be in his smithy, and therefore be available to witness the declaration. The smithy was normally an easily found place in any village.
I can't attest to the prices paid to the Smith for his services, but I doubt that this had much bearing on the decision to change the law. The real pressure was from the English who hated the Scottish tradition. Normal English traditional method of pressure based on 'you're doing something we don't like'.
@@basilpunton5702 Thanks for the additional context. What I'm really curious about is the exact meaning of marriages being "hammered out on the anvil" - is this just flamboyant imagery on the part of the script-writer, a borrowing of an historic turn of phrase, or does it refer to some "bit of flim flam or showmanship", as another poster put it, and if so, what did that consist of (e.g., the blacksmith banging on the anvil with his hammer, to conclude the proceedings)?
@@basilpunton5702 Presumably another point was that the blacksmith was considered a prosperous and respected member of the community as well (unlike the drunken louts down at the pub who might not even remember that you declared yourself married if an official witness before a magistrate was needed in the future).
Also while someone mentioned deceiving the woman with a false marriage, if the man just wanted a bed partner, he usually stopped before reaching the border (as in Pride & Prejudice) since the woman is already ruined and has no way to escape him. Any abductees who made it as far as border would most definitely have been married as the purpose would have been to gain access to her dowry (without the protections that a prudent parent or guardian would get written into the marriage contract) and, in order to do that, the man has to be her husband not just her despoiler.
I don't know if there's any accurate research (as opposed to anecdotal evidence) into what percentage of the anvil marriages were people who wanted to move the marriage up (pregnancy, change in circumstances, etc), people escaping parental disapproval, or abductions.
I’m sure the showmanship was around at some marriages, but it was just the presence of the blacksmith that led to such sayings. Certainly the anvil wasn’t necessary - all that was necessary was the witnesses, willing to sign as such.
The change wasn’t all at once, either. There was at least one earlier law that affected Scottish marriage, but I’ve forgotten the details.
@@judithstrachan9399 But were there "such sayings", or did the script-writer here just make this one up?
Scotland always has allowed young adults to marry 2 years earlier than England, and it still does.
and it has never required parental consent - though that was very nearly imposed on Scots marriage law from England in 1755
I am not sure that that is true - both Scotland and England would have had marriage allowed at 12 for girls and 14 for boys from canon law up to their respective Reformations and I am pretty sure both jurisdictions kept those ages until the Age of Marriage Act 1929 where the age was raised to 16 in both. England at some point introduced a requirement of parental consent for marriages of parties under the age of 18.
Thanks, curious about Gretna Green history after it was featured in a BBC series Waterloo Road episode where a teacher and student ran off to get married.
I remember lots of German and Dutch coming to get married here inthe 60's as in their own country they could not get married without their parents concent until they were 25 and 30 years old.
I often wonder how some of them turned out?
That's so nice of you to remember and wondering how they turned out. Just a little correction here, in Germany and in the Netherlands both women and men could marry from the age of 21 without consent of their parents at that time. I love you witnessed these young couples coming to Gretna Green!
I also presume the change in law was connected with what would be World War II to prevent sham marriages for death benefits, underage marriages, possibly marriages where involved close relatives. As to the blacksmith doing them, it is possible they were allowed to do them by custom or in a central location in the town. Likely they were someone who could read and write for the paperwork.
There is no evidence that I know of to suggest that fear of people contriving to gain welfare benefits related to serving or indeed deceased soldiers was an element in the state's desire to eliminate irregular marriage in Scotland - I am 99% certain that was not mentioned in the parliamentary debates or the departmental papers though it is 20 years since I looked at them closely.
@@briandempsey5749 Also, the January 1, 1940 date makes it much less likely to have been drafted in response to any concern over WW II benefits fraud. The war in Europe didn’t start until September 1,1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Although both France and England declared war on Germany two days later on September 3, 1940. There were no substantial English combat losses prior to the German invasion of France on May 10, 1940, well after the law was enacted. There just wasn’t any WW II military death benefits fraud to protect against at the time.
The blacksmith was just the most likely person able to be located VERY QUICKLY, as Gretna marriages were mostly rushed.
There are a few isolated mentions of this as a problem during the first World War in the departmental papers
In addition to irregular marriage (per verba de praesenti, per verba de futuro subsequente copula or by cohabitation with habit and repute) at Gretna or elsewhere and regular marriage (by publication of notice (banns) and conducted by a religious celebrant) there was another practice that developed esp in the big cities and that was so called marriage before the sheriff - parties could marry de praesenti and then go before the sheriff (the local judge) and confess to their failure to register their irregular marriage - their receipt for paying the small fine that was imposed upon them then served the couple as their marriage certificate (or marriage lines as ma grannie would have said).
The wheel has turned again and most couples In England, as in Scotland, no longer bother with ANY marriage ceremony, whether religious or civil. There are problems over inheritance because a vocal lobby of religious people is determined to keep unmarried couples at a disadvantage in any way they can.
Marriage is a legal contract. It is the guarantee of rights. By not marrying the couple is inherently stating that they have no interest in those rights. Probably because they have no interest in any responsibility to anyone.
@@ariadammons7069 Marriage is not a contract. It is a status. Different jurisdictions attach a great variety of rights to it, but generally the partners can not change them. That would not be true of a contract.
@@faithlesshound5621 I believe they can be changed, it just isn't worth it for most people or they don't realize prenuptial agreements can be useful in their particular situations as well.
@faithlesshound,
Damn Catlics ( catlickers ), i hates'em . . . ☆
What do you mean when you say the marriages were "hammered out on the anvil"?
that's just a bit of flim flam or showmanship - it had no legal significance but presumably the show meant the couple thought they were ggetting something for their money - they were in fact marrying each other by exchange of consent which they could have done anywhere in Scotland at any time in whatever company they chose.
@@briandempsey5749 One fiction book choose to interpret that as the final sizing of the couple's selection from the premade rings the blacksmith had available.
So.... Kinda like Vegas?
Roman law forced on people by the over reaching state. 🥺
Blacksmith as an "official"😮 I did not know
no, unless by 'official' in inverted commas you mean someone who is not in fact an official (ie a pretend official) - in a marriage at Gretna the parties were marrying each other by their declaration of present consent (per verba de praesenti) and it mattered not one jot whether the blacksmith was present or not.
Before the change in the law, an man could solemnize a marriage. A blacksmith was just a convenience, as he was usually in or near his forge and ‘open for business.’ Convenience led to tradition, and to this day you can arrange to be married in Gretna over an anvil, except the ceremony is performed by a minister or other officiant and you have to book ahead.
@@blacksmith67 that's not quite correct - any man and woman who were free to marry could marry each other and it was of no legal consequence what anyone else (eg a blacksmith or a ship captain) did in pretending to officiate - the only persons who could solemnize a marriage were ministers/priests of certain religious recognised by the state for those purposes.
It was the witnessed declaration (and consummation) that was the legal marriage. As blacksmith67 said, a blacksmith was usually always around & quickly found.
@@judithstrachan9399 no, there was and is no requirement of consummation in Scots law - and there was also no requirement for witnesses - although witnesses would make proof much easier (the marriage could be proved by other means) they were not a necessary part of getting married - all that was needed was the exchange of consent between the parties.
Among the British aristocracy marriage was all about tit!es, wealth, and power. Marriages were dynastic arrangements intended to keep that wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the aristocracy. They were arranged like business deals and marriage contracts were drawn up and signed. (What's love got to do with it?) There was supposed to be a law against forcing a woman to marry somebody she didn't want to, but the people who most frequently broke that law was the bride's own family. Up until fairly recently, marriage was not about love but was seen as a way to adance the family fortune and social standing. It was not between the bride and groom, but between their respective families. Gretna Green gave an aristocratic bride hope she could marry for love and thwart her family's pressure to marry someone she didn't want to, like a man 40 or 50 years older than she was. The race was always to catch the couple before they got to Scotland, or, failing that, before the.marriage was consumates. If the bride was under age, they could have the marriage annulled becaus e she married without permission.
😂 brilliant
the state owns you.
🤔
I would have loved to learn about this but I refuse to engage with any AI image use. Look up how much water and energy you wasted.
Are you volunteering to do the illustrations for this channel going forward? Smaller channels don't always have the means to compose original music or commission artists. Also-- says the guy with an AI image for his avatar.
@jeffaltier5582 laziness is a shit excuse my dude.
So,..... I guess that posting a comment dose not count as engaging with this post? Does that mean by ignoring what you said and still calling you unintelligent counts as valid?