‘One of the most cruel enterprises’
Marriage in period dramas is ALWAYS an exciting episode, filled with spectacle and romance. Marriage is also critical to every woman’s life in such Georgian shows. For example, in Pride and Prejudice, it is Mrs Bennet’s life goal to marry her daughters to good matches. The same is apparent in Bridgerton by which the first season is built around Daphne’s quest for marriage and how joyous she should be should she find a suitable love match. But, marriage was not always desirable to women, particularly not in the 1750s when the constitution of legal marriage was changed forever…
Daphne Bridgerton at her wedding - image credit: Netflix
The Marriage Bill of 1753 marked a big change in how marriages occurred in the Georgian period but has been so enduring that it is how marriage still takes place today! The Bill required a marriage to have a license, parental permission for minors, witnesses and an authorised clergyman as well as recording the event in a marriage register. But why was it so odd to those in the period and what did this mean for women?
What was marriage like before?
Previous to the 1753 Act, ‘what creates the married state and constitutes the contract’ is ‘that FAITH by which the Man and Woman bind themselves to each other to live as man and wife’
- Henry Stebbing, 1754.
This meant that if a man and woman had made a promise to each other, it was a marriage. If words were expressed in the present tense, the couples promise was marriage regardless of witnesses, or consummation. If expressed in the future tense, the marriage was binding after consummation. The church ceremony was viewed as an act of repetition of the sacred vows promised to one another and was in no way legally binding, it was also not necessary, with some couples skipping out on the church altogether. In this way, women who were pregnant but ‘debauched under the promise of marriage’ were offered some support from the law in that the Justices of the Peace and church courts would compel the men in question to uphold their promises.
Justice of the Peace: unpaid judicial officer appointed to ‘keep the peace’. They administered criminal and civil justice and were in many ways similar to the police before the police force existed!
The marriage bill was designed to prevent rich heirs and heiresses of good family and fortune from being seduced into marriages with those less well off than themselves. (Or this is how it was put to parliament at least.) However, once the Marriage Act came into law a woman left in this way by a man no longer had any recourse. Verbal promises no longer meant anything in the eyes of the law. While in theory this appears better and is more like marriages of today, it created many issues for women, often leading those pregnant destitute which often led to them becoming harlots. This also meant that those living as husband and wife were no longer such, making the woman a whore and any children she had bastards. There was no legal tie for maintenance and support from the father. This allowed the male to be free from the consequences of his actions and the woman ‘ruined’. The new Marriage Bill was described as:
‘one of the most cruel enterprises against the fair sex that ever entered into the heart of man’ that would be ‘the ruin of a multitude of young women’.
- Parliamentary History, 60, 58, 59.
Why did it change?
The main focus of marriage – producing children – remained the same. Political economists of the eighteenth century felt that:
‘without marriages, the population would every year decrease; and agriculture, trade and manufactures could not be carried on.’
- F. Douglas, 1771.
Children were viewed as the most valuable asset in that the nation was dependant on having a continuous supply of workers, and not only that but an increasing number (given the Georgian period marked the pre-industrial period). The Marriage Act was brought in, in part, to ensure that the children were properly raised and maintained, children that were not brought up properly were viewed only as a burden. In ensuring marriages were legally binding, it ensured that children of the marriage were well provided for. Legalising marriage in this way, also meant that good matches were all the more important.
Bridal dress - image credit: Ackermann’s repository 1816
What did this mean for women?
This change appears beneficial to women who were married after the bill in 1753 as it meant they would be afforded security and their children cared for. However, it was not. Proving marital status or tracking down a spouse was very difficult – there was no Facebook to stalk them on! Wedding factories such as that like Keith’s Chapel in Fleet conducted up to 6000 weddings a year. Those who conducted the wedding were trusted to turn a blind eye and ignore issues such as the bride’s age or that the couple was drunk. Witnesses could also easily be bribed to deny that a wedding had happened or to say one had taken place when it had not. For a fee, wedding certificates could also be forged or removed from the wedding. This, therefore, made more issues for women as before word was binding, and now nothing was as everything could be fabricated or destroyed. This made the marriage market all the more difficult, particularly for those from the lower classes.
In theory, the bill and the introduction of reading banns was to rid society of its evils. Banns are read publicly in the lead up to marriage (usually over three separate Sundays) and ensure a delay between the desire to marry and the actual marriage. It was thought this would stop polygamy, drunken marriages, unwanted pregnancies, impulsive marriages, or thoughtless marriages from the poor leading to children they could not afford as well as preventing the wealthy from being seduced into unequal matches.
Did it work?
It did not. If the aim was to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate children and ensure fathers took care of them and their education as was initially claimed, the Act failed. It did not improve the morality of the population either, with prenuptial pregnancies and illegitimate births only increasing as the age of marriage continued to go down. If judged on material results, however, it was a triumph. Britain’s population doubled between 1791 and 1831 to 13.28 million. This is perhaps the only way in which the Act succeeded.
Did women still marry?
It would appear then, that remaining single is a better option than marriage and children given the difficulty of proving marital status after 1753 and the issues of being looked after. Then, when married, if you were unhappy it was very difficult to leave the marriage. However, this was not the case, remaining single was seen as a misfortune and was not an option for a woman of ANY class. Women continued to struggle. As such, marriage was often viewed as the sole goal for women during this period, and a desirable match was all the more important.
Read my next blog for more on making a perfect marriage match!
Until next time,
Chlo
Further reading:
( full reference available on the source page, the list here is just the name and title)
Alina Field - 10 facts about marriage and divorce in historical England.
Eve Tavor Bannet - The Marriage Act of 1753.
Louise Allen - Banns or Licence? Ways to marry in Georgian England.
UK Parliament - The Law of Marriage.