Talk:Fleet marriage

Fleet marriage

I have rewritten this article, since it takes, verbatim, part of this article, which was in itself incorrect in many instances. To take a few examples:

• such marriages at the Fleet Prison were only one example of many. The article suggests that these were the only ones.
• the details about the law of England. There was in fact no need for a clergyman to be present; all that was required was the vows to be stated. I have included the lowest age at which that could be done.
• Banns or a licence were only required after 1694/5 under two Marriage Acts.
• there were many reasons why clandestine marriages were undertaken, other than the expense: the Fleet marriages were very expensive, since both clergymen and warders expected a ‘cut’ - it was why they did it in the first place!
• the marriages moved out of the Prison to the surrounding area after the 1711 statute: now was the time when marriage houses and taverns grew up in an very lawless part of the City
• Gretna Green was not the only place where couples went, as I have indicated
• my reference book (Ancestral Trails: The Complete Guide to British Genealogy and Family History, Mark D Herber (Sutton Publishing, Ltd 1997)) contains the exact details of the numbers of registers etc now extant. I have included many other details from it.
• The Registrar-General has not occupied Somerset House for at many decades; all such documents now are kept by The National Archives (renamed from the Public Record Office).

Peter Shearan 12:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find this introduction very confusing although I'm not sure I understand it enough to make a simple change:

A Fleet Marriage is the best-known example of an irregular or a clandestine marriage taking place in England before 1753. It was one which took place in London's Fleet Prison during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

It doesn't seem right to have the form: An X is the Y : in the first sentence. Simple switching "the" to "a" won't work and even if it did, it would be reversing the original intentions of Peter Shearan.

dpen2000 00:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

@Dpen2000: With regard to the text mentioned in the previous comment about how "fleet marriage" was a well-known form of clandestine marriage, until this text was removed by the 18:31, 25 August 2019 revision, there didn't seem to be much point in responding to the comment, but as that text has since been removed, it might lead one to believe that the text was removed on this basis. To avoid such an erroneous inference, I shall point out that there's not any problem with the form of the statement, i.e. "An x is the Y". At least, I contend that it would be the rare native speaker (at least in the U.S.) who would identify such a problem., though I do understand the objection as has been stated.

As an example "A carrot is the vegetable", that sounds like nonsense. Attempting to analyze the statement from a grammatical perspective is somewhat complex. Is it really about an indefinite Fleet Marriage, or is it about the set of Fleet Marriages as a whole? Is the presence of the indefinite article (the "a") of any significance?

But it's not actually in the form "An x is the Y". It's in the form "an x is the 'unique member of' Y", though it might still seems weird to claim that something 'indefinite' is something 'definite'. Yet changing our sentence to "A carrot is the most nutritious vegetable", it's apparent that there's not any problem with this form. Fabrickator (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Iregular Marriages

Is it true that the common law permitted marriages in secret? My understanding is that a marriage always required a public element, though it did not have to be advertised widely. A marriage certainly required more than the declaration between the couple - that declaration had to be made in front of others. Avalon 19:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It is actually true, per the main "Marriage/History/Europe" article. I copy/pasted from that article to this one to indicate that, while not considered valid in the 18th century, it was very common in earlier eras, and only made illegal by the Christian Church in the mid-16th century. Lamerc (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Best known

The problem with calling something "best known" is it needlessly introduces an unknown factor into the article. Namely "best known" by who? Present day historians? Present day persons generally? Persons of the period? Persons of the period in England, or within London specifically? The cite added indicates that they "were extremely popular among Londoners" at the time. That may make them "best known", but doesn't address "by who"? But really we don't need to introduce this uncertainty. We have a cite indicating their significance at the time, so needn't concern the reader about how well known they are by unspecified people. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: From my perusal (such as it was) of various sources, it was unclear to me as to whether or not "Fleet marriage" was merely an example of an irregular marriage, or if it was actually a colloquial term to refer to irregular marriages in general... and when I say "irregular marriages", I include both irregular marriages and clandestine marriages. It seems quite possible that the wording was intended to indicate this latter interpretation.

Arguably, this is the heart of the matter. You claim that "best known" is vague because we don't know "by whom", so wishing to eliminate a potential inaccuracy, you remove that characterization (though subsequently replacing it by "commonly known') and say "Aha! The article is improved." But in so doing, you have taken away from the reader the opportunity to have doubt about this statement.

When the claim was that this was "best known", one could infer that the author was probably taking some license, precisely for the reasons you indicate. (I'm really sort of dismissive as to your concerns about "by whom", as it is evident that this is a subjective claim.) I will observe that while this term may be common parlance in the U.K., the term is unfamiliar to those who have been living in the former colonies.

Had I thought this phrasing was worthy of being corrected, and in the absence of any objective basis for claiming it's "the best-known example", I might have changed this to indicate that irregular marriage is "best known as" Fleet marriage, conjecturing that the author had struggled with how to avoid awkwardness in phrasing this, both in light of the fact that this is sort of an "aside", while at the same time, it is definitional in terms of the topic of the article! But in the absence of specific support for a claim to that effect, that change would have left us with this speculative claim, which is what you contend is the original problem.

But in removing this ambiguity, while not addressing this alternative explanation, you have worsened the problem. Rather than make a statement that may be vague or dubious, you replace the requirement from the reader to perform some critical analysis (assuming they really care) and avoid this alternative explanation.

According to https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C13332, during a particular decade, there were 6,500 irregular marriages performed annually at Fleet, with the runner up in irregular marriages being 1,000 per year at Mayfair. The claim that Fleet marriages are the "best known" type of irregular marriage may be subjective, but if it is, that really weakens the argument that it's inaccurate. Fabrickator (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

All good points. So is there a way of indicating that the majority of "irregular" marriages were "Fleet", without involving the supposed knowledge of an undefined person? How about "Fleet marriages were the most common type of irregular or a clandestine marriage in England before the Marriage Act 1753 came into force on March 25, 1754." ? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: I would say that you should consider whether your approach is to the benefit of Wikipedia (i.e. leaving the reader with some doubt of a statement's veracity or precise meaning can be preferable to blocking it from the reader altogether). Notwithstanding that, I proffer the following quote to precisely support the claim of Fleet marriages being the "best known" irregular marriages:

From the late 1720s, clandestine marriages commenced at May Fair, which eventually became only second to the Fleet in terms of notoriety for such marriages.

That's from https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C13332. Please elaborate if you feel the above quote does not adequately support the statement made. Fabrickator (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain what problem there is with with saying that "Fleet marriages were the most common type of irregular or a clandestine marriage" ? It seems to me to be perfectly straightforward, 100% factual, and leaves the reader with no doubt to their significance. Is this not clearer than establishing their significance by proxy through the knowledge of unspecified persons? It's a completely unneeded added complication to reach the same conclusion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

For reference, here are the different versions up for discussions:

• pre-existing: A Fleet Marriage is the best-known example of an irregular or a clandestine marriage taking place in England before the Marriage Act 1753 came into force ...

• current: A Fleet Marriage was a common example of an irregular or a clandestine marriage taking place in England before the Marriage Act 1753 came into force ...

• proposed: Fleet marriages were the most common type of [an] irregular or a clandestine marriage taking place in England before the Marriage Act 1753 came into force ...

You ask what is the problem with your most recent proposal.

It's as simple as the fact that there's nothing wrong with the pre-existing phrasing. It tells us that there are "irregular and clandestine" marriages, and without precisely defining what these terms exactly mean, it tells us that many of these marriages will be termed as "Fleet marriages" without particular differentiation.

Your proposed wording makes an assertion about the relative number of these marriages. We have some examples of data to support this; ironically, the "factualness" of this wording could make this subject to challenge. Perhaps we really need to couch this and say that "Fleet marriages appear to have been the most common type...".

But all along, my feeling is that we should give some degree of deference to the pre-existing wording, and absent a Wikipedia policy to this effect, I would characterize it as common sense, but I'll present some justification for this position:

• Failing to provide such deference invites "back and forth" changes without any reasonable manner of resolution.
• Every change (shall we say "persisted change") invites question as to the rationale for the change, resulting in pointless usage of limited resources (i.e. editor time).
• One change is likely to invite discussion of the need for further changes (e.g. in your example, we have a change in tense, a change in subject number, and as well, this invites a discussion as to the significance of the conjunction between "irregular" and "clandestine".
• In other words, this change can lead to a need to review the whole context, for accuracy, style, etc.
• And never mind the fact that we have actually lost significant information from the pre-existing wording (which, remember, is the original wording from when User:Peter_Shearan re-wrote this article back in 2005).

Perhaps you feel the need to elevate this to be closer to a "journal-level" article. And while I'm not a big fan of the "WWat wikipedia is/is not" arguments, I'll say "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" (and an unreliable one at that). Elimination of all imprecision is not a goal. Fabrickator (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• We do not have to be vague to protect the article from challenges. Challenges are good, they improve the article and oblige it to prove what it says.
• We have good sources that specifically show it was the most common. Any challenge to that would need better sources that contradict that. Do you think this is likely? I think it extremely unlikely. It is not a controversial opinion, but a matter of historical fact.
• We have one source that suggests it was well known. While this may be true, it really doesn't match the hard figures of how common it was.
• The two statements do not mean the same thing. Saying "well known" conceals far more than "most common", because it could be well-known, but rare. Conversely, it cannot be most common, but unknown.
• I would say the frequency of it is of more significance of how well known it might be. Particularly when one is the result of the other.
• If you think that "best-known" is an important fact, then it can be included later in the lead. But I suspect that the reader will be unimpressed with this superfluous information.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: @Peter Shearan: In considering the content of this article, a major defect becomes quite apparent. With Fleet Marriage as the subject, it is necessary to provide details of irregular and clandestine marriage, as though these were incidental to Fleet Marriage.

That is backwards. It is irregular and clandestine marriage which is the bigger topic, and Fleet marriage is merely incidental to that. A rationalized article would be about English Irregular and Clandestine Marriage, with Fleet Marriage being explained as the subset of those marriages that were performed in and around Fleet Prison.

If you are concerned about the quality of this article, then rather than spend resources making tweaks to an article that is clearly broken, make the changes that will actually provide a material improvement. Fabrickator (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is not "broken", it is merely at a more specific level than you might like. If you think there is call for a more generic English Irregular and Clandestine Marriage article, feel free to start one. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: @Peter Shearan: When I say the article is broken, I'm referring to the fact that it's necessary to understand irregular and clandestine marriage in order to have a proper understanding of Fleet marriage.

Because Irregular and clandestine marriage are not commonly-used and well-known terms, they require explanation. Because there is no article on irregular and clandestine marriage, some background information about them is included in this article. (Whether two separate articles are required, or if Fleet marriage should be subsumed under irregular and clandestine marriage, is more of a judgement call... though these being so closely intertwined, I'm inclined towards the latter.) In the current article, the information on irregular and clandestine marriage is presented as an "aside", so it doesn't give sufficient information to properly understand them. As well, a substantial portion of Peter Shearan's contribution has been removed due to lack of citation. I suspect that these removals have seriously impacted the quality of the article.

I am concerned. A major do-over requires somebody who has good familiarity with the topic, or at least someone who's willing to gain that level of familiarity. The article could be flagged as needing improvement (IMO, still subject to renaming the article to "English irregular and clandestine marriage"), or it could be proposed for deletion. (My knowledge of Wikipedia protocol is quite superficial, so perhaps there are better alternatives.) Fabrickator (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

As to the issue of whether it is of greater interest that Fleet marriages were the most common type of (irregular or clandestine marriages), or that Fleet marriages are the most well-known type of (irregular or clandestine marriage), I think that how common this was misses the point. A marriage in which a couple travels to a different district just to keep it out of everybody's business, that's purely banal. The idea of people somewhat commonly going to a "prison district" to have a marriage officiated by a prison inmate seems quite peculiar, thus helping to make Fleet marriage be well-known, and thus helping to clarify to the reader that they should be surprised by this infamous manner of marriage. OTOH, claiming it was the most common subtype of a limited subset of marriages fails to explain why anyone would care. Fabrickator (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)