Quick Index Board Index Home FAQ Site Map
|Its another example of Mrs Bennet getting it wrong!
Written by JulieW
(2/16/2004 3:10 p.m.)
in consequence of the missive, But Darcy isn't really Aristocracy, penned by kathleen (elder)
Special licenes were included in Lord Chancellor Hardwicke's Marriage Actof 1753 as a sop to get the Act passed through the House of Lords( where member of the aristocracy and senior members of the Church of England sat as of right,as part of England's legislature.).
He was attempting to legislate on this subject for the first time in English legal history, as he wanted to end the abuses of the marriage systm, by both churhmen and the laity, as it stood in the mid 18th century.
To get the support of the Achbishop of Canterbury , the senior bishops and the peers, he allowed the clerics to retain the right to grant these "Special licenses ", which allowed the couple to be married anywhere- which went against the grain of the rest of the Acts revolutionary tone;
Section 6 Clandestine MArriages Act 1753 states;
Provided always,That nothing herein befoe contained shall be construed to extend to deprive the Archbishop of canturbury and his Sucessors,and his and their proper Officers, to teh right whihc hath hitherto been used, in virtue of a cetain satatue made in teh twenty-fifth Yer of the reign of the late King Henry the Eigth, intiuled,An Act concerning Peter Pence and Dispensation: of granting Special licences to marry at any convieninet Time or Place
The Artisocracy thefore retained the right,by obtaining a Special Licence to marry where and when they wished, withouth resorting to teh publicatoin of banns ,which teh majority of tehpopulation ahd to endure.
However it was not a speedy process.Not one to be used by people in a hurry, it was expensive,fees were pauyable and sometimes lawyers were consulted with regard to the form fillling exercise.At least one peer-Lord Byron- complained of the inorndinate time it took to obtain the license form the Archbishops office.
( I must admit this holds true for the 20th century too- Iwas married by Special License in1988 and it took nearly 6 months to obtian it.Affidavits have to be swron by both parties ,many forms filled in and then one has to wait for the Archbishop to consult with cleryg local to you before a license is granted.)
So- I think it unlikey that Darcy would have done this-he was not a member of the aritoscray.He was an untitled grandson of an Earl thourhg the distaff( female ) side.Close,but not close enough.I really don't think he would qualify....
He didnt really have the option of privacy, when marrying into the Bennet family , did he ? LOL He might have thought such an expesnive and lengthy applicaton to the Archbishop totally superfluous.
As I said, Mrs bennet gets it wrong again........
Groupread is maintained by Myretta with WebBBS 3.21.