Marriage, Divorce, and (possibly) Annulment During the Regency
Today, the Dashing Duchesses are pleased to welcome Regency author (and attorney) Ella Quinn. Ella has agreed to share with us some fascinating tidbits about estate law, Regency style. So, pull up a leather chair in the study, dears, and let’s learn about the law.
During the Regency period, the Hardwicke Marriage Act of 1753 was in effect. The purpose of the Act was to regularize all aspects of marriage and the ending of a marriage. The Act itself was not very specific about many matters except that it had to be performed by clergy of the Anglican Church. The Church rules were specific as to marriages.
There were three ways to marry: reading the banns, buying a license, and elopement.
All marriages had to preformed by Anglican clergy, only Jews and Quakers were exempt and only if both parties were either Jewish or Quaker.
Banns: If banns were to be read, they had to be read in the parishes of both bride and groom (if they belonged to different parishes) for three consecutive Sundays. Which meant a wait of about two and a half weeks. The ceremony had to be held before noon in a church, any day but Sunday. If one or both the parties were minors (under the age of twenty-one), and/or one of them did not have a guardian, including an illegitimate minor, banns were the only way, other than elopement, to go. Marriage by license was void. To avoid parental notice, some couple had the banns read in a different parish. Once the marriage took place, the law prohibited anyone from questioning the residence of the couple.
Illegitimate children were deemed to have no guardian unless one was appointed by the court. Married women were not guardians and could not give consent for a minor to marry.
Licenses: Buying a license sped up the process. A regular license, obtainable by any bishop, allowed the couple to marry after a week, however, all the other requirements still had to me met. A special license, obtained at the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office in Doctor’s Commons, allowed an immediate marriage, anywhere, anytime. If one or both of the couple was a minor, the consent of a guardian was required or the marriage was void.
Elopement: Among the ton and middle classes, elopement to Scotland was scandalous. The main reason was that the couple were together for five days (if leaving from London) to reach Scotland. In an era where a young unmarried lady was not allowed in a closed coach with a man, this was bad indeed. Once in Scotland, they could be legally married, but they should not count on being received by the highest sticklers, or obtaining vouchers for Almacks. For a few years, one could also elope to the Isle of Mann, but in 1797, the government there passed an act similar to the Hardwicke Act which stopped the traffic.
DIVORCE
In England, there were very few grounds for divorce. One was adultery, but very few women succeeded in prosecuting their husband except if the husband had slept with her sister. The other was for extreme physical abuse. Divorces were very messy and, afterward, the woman was usually not received, nor could she marry the person with whom she committed adultery. Another option was Scotland where women could successfully sue their husbands for divorce on the ground of adultery.
Separation was much more common and not as socially hurtful as a divorce.
Annulment: There were only two grounds for annulment and lack of consummation was not one of them, unless it was proved that the husband could not perform, the wife suffered from extreme frigidity, had a physical blockage and would not have it surgically removed, or the marriage was voidable. An example of a voidable marriage is one in which the parties were closely related by blood or marriage, for example a man marrying his sister-in-law. Although not technically illegal, the Church did not allow those marriages, which begs the question of how the couple got around it. One of Jane Austen’s brothers married his dead wife’s sister. Whether the clergy member didn’t know of their relationship or just didn’t care we will never know.
OTHER SUNDRY FACTS
Sadly, the actual service was usually attended by a small group, which may be because many private and parish churches were very small. The bride did not typically walk down the aisle. I’ve heard that the father or guardian gave the woman to the husband at the church door. If a special gown was made, it would be used again. After the ceremony, the groom was not told to kiss the bride, and it was not expected that he would. The couple signed the parish register before leaving the church. A ring was required. If a woman was given a ring at the time of the engagement, it was usually used as the wedding ring.
After a morning wedding a wedding breakfast was held for any number of people.
For a month after the wedding, the newly married couple to precedence at any social gathering. So when entering the dining room, which was done by rank, they would go first. They were also supposed to go away somewhere.
A widow who took her rank from her husband and subsequently married a lesser ranking man, was then addressed by the title associated with her new husband. The only exception was a duchess who, after having been married for many, many years and producing an amazing number of children, married her children’s tutor and was still addressed as duchess. But that was not normal. So if a lady had been a Miss before her marriage to a peer, and then married a Mr. She would be a Mrs. If she had the rank of Lady Firstname before her marriage and re-married a Mr. She would be Lady Firstname Husband’s Lastname.
CHILDREN
Any child born of the marriage was considered legitimate as long as the father didn’t object. If the husband died, any child born of the un-remarried widow within two years of the death(I don’t know how long that rule lasted) was considered legitimate issue of the marriage. Parents had to be married at the time of the birth. If not, the child was illegitimate. Illegitimate children could not inherit the title or entailed property.
Ella Quinn’s studies and other jobs have always been on the serious side. Reading historical romances, especially Regencies, were her escape.
When they were dating, Ella’s husband convinced her he was really a Viking warrior, that was thirty-one years ago. They have a son and granddaughter, Great Dane and a Chartreux. After living in the South Pacific, Central America, North Africa, and in Europe, she and her husband decided to make St. Thomas, VI home.
Ella is a member of the Romance Writers of America, The Beau Monde and Hearts Through History. She’s extensively researched the Regency era, immersing her stories with the flavor and feel of the era . She also belongs to the Regency Romance Critique Group.
Ella is represented by the lovely Elizabeth Pomada, Larsen-Pomada Literary Agency.




























Hi Ella, thanks for joining the Duchesses today! I love the convolutions of the English vs. Scottish marriage laws – makes for some interesting plot twist potential. The irregular marriages to be had in Scotland always made my eyes widen.
Duchess Jennifer McQuiston,
Thank you Jennifer. I’d love to delve into all the differences between English and Scotish law at some point. Early on, Scotland was a good way to get around English law, later court decisions made it more difficult.
Thank you so much for having me on today.
Great post, Ella. After reading so many regencies where the couple intended to get an annulment, it amazed me when I did my own research and found that annulment because of lack of performance was the main, if not only, reason. And how many heroes would agree to that??
Callie Hutton,
There was one case where an annualment was granted and the man subsequently re-wed and had a child. One of the judges wanted to disolve the annualment. But another said that one could do with one woman what he could not with another.
Oh, how funny!
Wise judge! LOL
[...] http://dashingduchesses.com/?p=2555 [...]
Once again, the duchess is the exception. I love it! Thanks for an interesting post, Ella. The judge’s comment just above also made me snort. Most unbecoming, I know.
Loved the post, Ella. I hadn’t run across the info about the groom’s not being told to kiss the bride after the vows.
Duchess Ashlyn Macnamara,
Thanks, Ashlyn. In many ways, they were much less inhibited back then. Except young unmarried ladies. I’d go back as a widow.
Barb Bettis,
I’d say sad but true, yet you can make a big deal out of him doing it when he wasn’t supposed to. Much more fun to have an unsanctioned kiss.
I know, right?
Nancy Meyer reminded me that the two year after death baby was an exception, but it did happen. Ten months was a more normal time.
Excited to chat about this with Jo Bourne…I know in a Georgette Heyer novel the hero says he signed some oath or something saying he had permission to marry the underage girl in order to get the special liscense….wonder if that was actually true!
My understanding is that the “word of a gentleman” would be accepted by the bishop issuing a license, so a nefarious man could have obscured impediments, resulting in marriages that should not have happened.
Lovely post, Ella! Thanks for joining the Duchesses today!
Madeline Iva,
Madeline, it was Friday’s Child. Under those circumstances the marriage would be void. A little later she does have the girl’s guardian saying he agreed with the marriage, so there was no one to contest it.
Duchess Eileen Emerson,
Eileen, that’s exactly right. You’re welcome. This is fun.
Very good. Nice & concise.
Very entertaining post, Ella. I was surprised by this rule: If the husband died, any child born of the un-remarried widow within two years of the death was considered legitimate issue of the marriage. With all the other strict rules, you’d think they’d be able to count the gestation period more closely.
Seeing as how the “medical professionals” still felt bloodletting a viable treatment for many illnesses, perhaps they didn’t understand the lifespan of sperm (or whatever they thought the magic ingredient to be at that time.)
But it does seem a tad weird to me, too.
While writing the first book in my new series, I did some research on divorce in the 1819 Journals of the House of Lords(the year my story takes place). Here’s a link: http://tinyurl.com/dyawq4w
Use the magnifier (top left) as the print is quite small.
What a fabulous blog today. I learned so much. I’ve read about these things in novels but did not always understand the legalities surrounding them. Thank you so much for enlightening me today.
Fascinating post, as usual, Ella! This is going in my research notebook. And I would definitely rather be a rich widow than a wife in the Regency (Unless I was married to Mr. Darcy! LOL)
“If the husband died, any child born of the un-remarried widow within two years of the death(I don’t know how long that rule lasted) was considered legitimate issue of the marriage.”
There’s the plot to a murder mystery! Great post. Thank you!
LouisaCornell,
Hi Louisa. Thanks for coming by.
Gina,
Hi Gina, thank you.
Susanna Ives,
Susanna, I’m glad you came by.
LouisaCornell,
All in all being a widow was a less restrictive lifestyle. Of course one still had to have a companion.
Ally Broadfield,
Ally, It was an exception, and I can’t remember the reason. Though ten months is still giving the widow time.
Vicky Dreiling,
Vicky, thank you for posting the link. I love old court cases.
Connie Fischer,
Connie, thank you.
What a fascinating post, Ella! Thank you for sharing this today!
Marriage practices of the Regency period always amaze me. And of course, they wore their best dress as white wedding dresses weren’t the norm until the Victorian era. But also interesting the fact that they weren’t supposed to be seen in public for a period of time after the wedding too.
Great link, Vicky! Thanks for sharing!
Katherine Bone,
Hi Katherine, thank you. I’m glad you stopped by and commented.
Duchess Ashlyn Macnamara,
I know I would never want to give up being called a Duchess unless forced!
Katherine Bone,
Katherine, I was glad to find it. My hero in the upcoming book is a politician,and while the story doesn’t focus on politics, I had to show him in Parliament. Naturally, I found fodder for humor.
I was surprised to find more than one case of “criminal conversation” brought before the courts. That euphemism for adultery cracks me up!
Great post, Ella! Such a timely one for me, too, as I’m deep in revisions to a book in which marriage and annulmnets are a major factor. My period is a tad earlier, but ther’s just a wealth of info for me here. I agree that the 2 year legitimate issue rule is astounding. I will certainly find some way (eventually) to use that in one of my novels!
Thank you too, Vicky, for the link!
Nancy Goodman,
I agree. I wouldn’t want to give up being called Lady. Another good argument for a widow.
Interesting post…fascinating differences between Scottish and English law! Highly informative – I’d love to see a post in the future regarding marital law during the Victorian period.
Jenna Jaxon,
Jenna, thank you for coming by.
Tara Kingston,
Hm, Tara, I’m not there yet, and won’t be for a couple of years or more. The revision came towards the end of the Regency. The only thing I really know about it is that it clarified the law on marrying a brother or sister in law and made it acceptable. Maybe the Duchesses could ask Courtny Milan to come on.
Thanks for the interesting article. I have known for a long time that Scottish law was different from English law concerning marriage but it only recently occurred to me that the rules were different for divorce as well. Your post has certainly helped to clear that one up – thanks.
Rachel Knowles,
Early in the Regency, one could declare residency after six weeks and file for the divorce. One still had to have evidence of adultry. It wasn’t until late in the 20the century that divorce became easy anywhere.
What a brilliant topic! I’m always wondering about the ‘rules of marriage’ when I read. What would happen if a woman who hadn’t reached her majority married without her father’s consent? Would those be grounds for dissolution of the marriage?
Christina,
Hi Christina, thank you.
If she was a minor and didn’t have her father’s consent, she could marry by having the banns read or eloping. If she married by license, and her father or guardian objected, the marriage was void.
Interesting tidbits. Am so glad I wasn’t of that era. Way too stifling a period.
Bobbi Romans,
Hi Bobbi, not compared to the Victorian era.