'Jump the broom' weddings
Mark Greig
Scottish custom for common law marriages to be solemnised by the happy
couple literally jumping over a broom. Is this true, or another one of
those picturesque tales with little basis in fact?
Who out there knows?
Thanks for your interest
----------------------------------
Mark Greig
>>>>>>>>>>>> ma...@sola.u-net.com
----------------------------------
hell...@cc.weber.edu
before the US civil war, slave weddings on southern plantations
were solemnized by the slave couple "jumpin' over de broomstick."
HME (in utah)
Jack Campin
ma...@sola.u-net.com (Mark Greig) wrote:
> I seem to vaguely remember reading somewhere that it was once a Scottish
> custom for common law marriages to be solemnised by the happy couple
> literally jumping over a broom. Is this true, or another one of those
> picturesque tales with little basis in fact?
In Scots law a "marriage by habit and repute" (which is what I presume
you mean by "common law" marriage - the phrase means nothing here because
Scotland doesn't have common law) doesn't *need* to be solemnized. It's
every bit as binding as one formed by church or state ceremony. See any
textbook on Scots law, Enid Marshall will do.
Another piece of Scottish procedural DIY I've been told was written up in
the Scotsman recently: there's nothing to stop you burying your relatives
in your garden, so long as you *don't* erect a headstone and *do* record
the fact on the house deeds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Campin ja...@purr.demon.co.uk ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk
T/L, 2 Haddington Place, Edinburgh EH7 4AE, Scotland (+44) 131 556 5272
-------------------- FERMAN PADiSAHIN, DAGLAR BiZiMDiR --------------------
Michael Paterson
> I seem to vaguely remember reading somewhere that it was once a Scottish
> custom for common law marriages to be solemnised by the happy couple
> literally jumping over a broom. Is this true, or another one of those
> picturesque tales with little basis in fact?
"Jumping the broom" was practised by slaves in the southern US who
didn't have the "benefit of clergy," as their masters were not
interested in them being legally married but simply wanted their
offspring; a slave being roughly worth the same price as a modern
Cadillac and black babies being, like calves, a free source of
additional wealth.
It's sad yet so understandable that slaves still had enough spirit to
want some sort of ceremony to mark their love for their mates. Jumping
the broom fulfilled this desire.
Jumping the broom should make every "white" person ashamed of what
other "white" people did to their fellow humans...
Mi\cheil Rob Mac Pha\druig
druidh/duine-uasail
David Wright
<mik...@jumppt.com> writes
Scots in origin? Perhaps that provides a link to an older Scots/Celtic
tradition?
Daibhidh
---------------------------------------------------------
daib...@ealaghol.demon.co.uk Cu\m Ga\idhlig Beo\
David Wright
net.com> writes
>I seem to vaguely remember reading somewhere that it was once a
>Scottish custom for common law marriages to be solemnised by the happy
>couple literally jumping over a broom. Is this true, or another one of
>those picturesque tales with little basis in fact?
>
I recall an elderly plasterer who was doing a job for me in Derbyshire,
England shyly stating that he "wasn't really married of course, he was
just living over the broomstick".
Derbyshire being one of the last Celtic strongholds in England, perhaps
it has a Celtic rather than specifically Scottish background.
Michael Paterson
>In article <4fjvdc$8...@orb.direct.ca>, Michael Paterson
>I agree with your point, but weren't many of the plantation overseers
>Scots in origin? Perhaps that provides a link to an older Scots/Celtic
>tradition?
Might, I suppose. Slave-keeping was not nearly so widespread as one
might think; a slave was worth the equivalent of a Jaguar or Cadillac
so not that many land-owners could afford them. (It's intersting that
when I was in the Sahara, a camel cost two years' income - about the
price of a Jaguar or Cadillac! I wonder if these price equivalents are
a stable rule of thumb usable for any two cultures at any given time
in history? A camel in 1960's North Africa, a slave in 1800's America,
a wife in modern Kenya, a chariot in Caesar's Rome?
Angus MacCulloch
>In Scots law a "marriage by habit and repute" (which is what I presume
>you mean by "common law" marriage - the phrase means nothing here because
>Scotland doesn't have common law) doesn't *need* to be solemnized.
Well, Scotland is a common law country, we have no civil or criminal code.
True it does not have "common law marriage", the nearest equivalent being
"marriage by habit and repute" but for that to be recognised one "spouse"
has to have died. For this reason it is not very popular.
>It's every bit as binding as one formed by church or state ceremony. See >any textbook on Scots law, Enid Marshall will do.
If you want to know family law you would be better with Thompson.
Angus.
--
**********************************************************
* Angus D. MacCulloch Faculty of Law *
* Tel: +44 (0)161 275 3582 University of Manchester *
* Fax: +44 (0)161 275 3579 Manchester M13 9PL *
**********************************************************
Mark Greig
My Granny (very Edinburgh) also used to talk of couples who had
'jumped the broomstick', which is why the reference I came across (and
foolishly didn't note) rang bells. I don't think she had much
connection with the slave trade.
Perhaps it referred to a secular ceremony outside the ken of the
priest/minister of the time (I'm thinking 15th-16th Century)? A lead
in to a celebratory ceilidh?
The reason I ask is I need a visually striking ceremony of similar
kind for a script with no urgent grip on historical accuracy. If there
isn't anything suitable I'll make one up - save Scottish Culture from
this historical travesty! Give me some colourful hints!
I tend, like most Scots, to take Granny's word as law...
David Wright
<mik...@jumppt.com> writes
broom" rather than slavery!
Kirsty Foy
Scottish
> > custom for common law marriages to be solemnised by the happy couple
> > literally jumping over a broom. Is this true, or another one of those
> > picturesque tales with little basis in fact?
>
> you mean by "common law" marriage - the phrase means nothing here
because
> every bit as binding as one formed by church or state ceremony. See any
> textbook on Scots law, Enid Marshall will do.
>
Until 1924, if a man said that he would marry a woman if she had sex with
him and she did, they were legally married after the event. There is
another strange one which was abolished in 1924 which I can't remember
(something to do with a declaration, I think). "Habit and repute" is still
a legal marriage. Perhaps some people used to refer to these other
methods as "jumping the broom" (never heard of it myself) but it never had
any legal significance.
Incidentally, Scotland _does_ have common law (although not the same as
the English).
--
Kirsty Foy
<http://philos.resnet.ubc.ca/~kfoy/>
Colin Campbell
>Derbyshire being one of the last Celtic strongholds in England, perhaps
>it has a Celtic rather than specifically Scottish background.
>
>Daibhidh
I think it was fairly common throughout England and Scotland.
(Ireland too no doubt but I can't recall a reference to it there).
I've always thought of it as a lowland and English custom and
can't recall any mention of it in respect of Highland
"handfasting". The symbolism is quite obviously one of crossing a
threshold the modern carrying of the bride over the threshold is
obviously related.
Colin
Michael Paterson
>In article <4fmo1h$h...@aphex.direct.ca>, Michael Paterson
><mik...@jumppt.com> writes
>>David Wright <Daib...@ealaghol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4fjvdc$8...@orb.direct.ca>, Michael Paterson
>>>I agree with your point, but weren't many of the plantation overseers
>>>Scots in origin? Perhaps that provides a link to an older Scots/Celtic
>>>tradition?
>Err, I meant a link to an older Scots tradition regarding "Jump the
>broom" rather than slavery!
Oh, sorry A Dhaibhidh, I guess my natural yearning for unpaid personal
servants took over there for a moment...
Michael Paterson
>Until 1924, if a man said that he would marry a woman if she had sex with
>him and she did, they were legally married after the event.
My God, I never knew the risks I was running - it was one of my most
successful lines!
Sharon Krossa
ma...@sola.u-net.com (Mark Greig) wrote:
>I seem to vaguely remember reading somewhere that it was once a
>Scottish custom for common law marriages to be solemnised by the happy
>couple literally jumping over a broom. Is this true, or another one of
>those picturesque tales with little basis in fact?
>
>Who out there knows?
The law was changed sometime this century, but previously, though regular
marriage ceremonies were preferred by the authorities, all you needed for a
legal marriage was either 1) consent using words of the present tense
before witnesses (ie, declare before witnesses that you take each other for
husband and wife) or 2) have sex after a promise of future marriage (ie, no
tricking her into bed with a false promise of marriage -- once you sleep
with her that promise is realised! ;-)
These were not called "common law" marriages, but irregular marriages --
irregular but perfectly legal and *binding*. You could also become married
by habit and repute -- ie, by living together as a married couple with
everyone thinking that you are married. This method I believe still works,
though as another poster pointed out, its also not appropriate to call this
"common law" -- its "by habit and repute"!
As for any other customs that may have accompanied an irregular marriage of
the first type described, I have not seen any references to them in the
historical evidence I've looked at. So I guess my answer is, I don't know
:)
Sharon Krossa, struggling unsuccesfully to write a chapter on medieval
marriage, inheritance, and property law for her thesis!
skr...@svpal.org (permanent) -or- s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk (until June 1996)
Michael Paterson
Sharon Krossa, whose commentaries after her name give me great
amusement and make me think she sounds rather sweet!
I Johnston
: The law was changed sometime this century, but previously, though regular
: marriage ceremonies were preferred by the authorities, all you needed for a
: legal marriage was either 1) consent using words of the present tense
: before witnesses (ie, declare before witnesses that you take each other for
: husband and wife)
This method still applies for Quakers. "Friends, I take this my friend n
to be my husband, promising with Divine assistance to be unto him a
loving and faithful wife as long as we both on earth shall live".
In England, Quakers are the only group allowed to marry themselves.
Ian
Charles Ellson
kf...@philos.resnet.ubc.ca "Kirsty Foy" writes:
>
> Until 1924, if a man said that he would marry a woman if she had sex with
> him and she did, they were legally married after the event. There is
> another strange one which was abolished in 1924 which I can't remember
> (something to do with a declaration, I think). "Habit and repute" is still
> a legal marriage. Perhaps some people used to refer to these other
> methods as "jumping the broom" (never heard of it myself) but it never had
> any legal significance.
>
> Incidentally, Scotland _does_ have common law (although not the same as
> the English).
>
The relevant date is (before) 1 July 1940, consequent to the Marriage
(Scotland) Act 1939. This abolished all forms of irregular marriage
except for marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute, and
introduced civil marriages to Scotland. As for the first sentence, I
suspect you are mixing up irregular marriage with breach of promise.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson E-mail cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
john maxwell
tourism,or was there actually some significance to this town in "the
jumping of the broom"?
Cheers,
John Maxwell
Colin Rosenthal
>
>In England, Quakers are the only group allowed to marry themselves.
All the others have to marry _someone_ _else_.
--Colin Rosenthal | ``Don't smell the flowers -
--rose...@obs.aau.dk | They're an evil drug -
--http://bigcat.obs.aau.dk/~rosentha | To make you lose your mind''-
--Aarhus University, Denmark | Ronnie James Dio, 1983 -
Sheena MacKenzie
: I seem to vaguely remember reading somewhere that it was once a
: Scottish custom for common law marriages to be solemnised by the happy
: couple literally jumping over a broom. Is this true, or another one of
: those picturesque tales with little basis in fact?
: Who out there knows?
I'm no expert, by an means, but it may have something to do with the
tinkers' (travelling folk) weddings which have some peculiar traditions
in comparison with the religious or civil cermonies conducted these
days. By my mother's account, one couple, whose kids I went to school
with, had a traditional tinkers' wedding, and although I can't remember
anything off the top of my head about jumping over brooms, there was one
part of the wedding which involved mixing the waters of the couple - ie
they both peed into the same bucket, one after the other.
Sheena
--
Sheena MacKenzie Email: S.Mac...@shef.ac.uk
Department of Automatic Control Tel: +44 114 282 5236
& Systems Engineering
University of Sheffield.
I Johnston
: On 13 Feb 1996 13:46:02 GMT, I Johnston <ia...@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
: >
: >In England, Quakers are the only group allowed to marry themselves.
: All the others have to marry _someone_ _else_.
Foolish boy. No, they have to be married _by_ someone else. What's more,
in England only Anglican priests can conduct weddings by right of their
position: nonconformist ministers and RC priests have to be registrars
as well, and essentially carry out a civil wedding at the same time as
the unrecognized religious one.
Hang one, I think Rabbis get to perform marriages too.
Ian
Sharon Krossa
john maxwell <security.j...@nt.com> wrote:
Gretna Green fits into this in that it is one of the most southerly
Scottish border towns, was on one of the major roads north from England,
and thus easy to get to for English couples wishing to run away and get
married. England didn't have anything near so easy as declaring consent in
the present tense to get married, so English couples in a hurry headed
north to Scotland, hit Gretna, sought out a witness or two (contrary to my
earlier post, witnesses were not actually neccessary, except of course that
they made it a heck of a lot easier to prove to anyone else that you were
married) and married themselves. This could be done right up to 1940.
So, Gretna is not really significant to Scottish tradition but rather was
an English thing :) The English traditional legend (and I don't actually
know how true and/or common it was in the details) was for the eloping
couple to seek out the smith in Gretna Green (why the smith????) and to
exchange marriage vows over his anvil. The Smith didn't have to do anything
but watch so that when the avenging father caught up with the couple, their
was a witness to prove they were legally married. I've never heard that
this tradition had anything to do with brooms or jumping.
Sharon Krossa, trying to come up with something witty in this space to
entertain Mi\cheil ;-)
Sharon Krossa
col...@cruachan.win-uk.net (Colin Campbell) wrote:
Since handfasting has been mentioned, and I have just read a very thorough
article on the Scottish practice of handfasting, I will point out that
there is no contemporary evidence for "handfasting" to mean some sort of
'trial marriage' as is commonly believed, or, for that matter, any sort of
marriage, but rather, "handfasting" meant, simply, *betrothal* -- that is,
promising to get married in the future. The confusion seems to have come in
from some later legal commentators getting mixed up about the meaning of
the term "handfasted". Since handfasted couples were only betrothed, some
handfastings did lead to marriage (either solemn or by subsequente copula)
and some handfastings did not lead to marriage, that is, the betrothal was
broken off. Remember that a betrothed (handfasted) couple (a couple who had
consented to get married in the future) who then had sexual intercourse on
the faith of that promise (subsequente copula), were then considered to be
actually, legally, and bindingly married. So, a handfasted (betrothed)
couple who had children, well, they were pretty obviously married -- but so
too was *any* betrothed couple who had sexual intercourse, child or not. In
areas, not uncommon in the Highlands, that may not have been frequently
visited by a priest or minister, this form of marriage may have been more
common than elsewhere where the clergy were more plentiful and the solemn
form of marriage easier to achieve. The authorities, of course, did try to
make irregularly married couples solemnize their marriages the proper way
as soon as possible.
Again, I have yet to see any references to brooms or jumping in regard to
either handfasting (betrothal) or any of the four forms of marriage legal
in Scotland prior to 1940, or any ceremonies related to them. If anyone has
any references, I would really like to see them! (I could put it in this
**** thesis...)
Sharon Krossa, s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk, who knows far far more about
medieval and early modern Scottish betrothals, handfastings, and marriages,
than she ever wanted to or is generally recommended for sound mental health
Sharon Krossa
Charles Ellson <Cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4fo6kf$n...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>
> kf...@philos.resnet.ubc.ca "Kirsty Foy" writes:
>
>>
>> Until 1924, if a man said that he would marry a woman if she had sex with
>> him and she did, they were legally married after the event. There is
>> another strange one which was abolished in 1924 which I can't remember
>> (something to do with a declaration, I think). "Habit and repute" is still
>> a legal marriage. Perhaps some people used to refer to these other
>> methods as "jumping the broom" (never heard of it myself) but it never had
>> any legal significance.
>>
>> Incidentally, Scotland _does_ have common law (although not the same as
>> the English).
>>
>The relevant date is (before) 1 July 1940, consequent to the Marriage
>(Scotland) Act 1939. This abolished all forms of irregular marriage
>except for marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute, and
>introduced civil marriages to Scotland. As for the first sentence, I
>suspect you are mixing up irregular marriage with breach of promise.
Yes, it's me again :) I don't think the first poster is really confusing
irregular marriage with breach of promise -- because if a couple mutually
consented to get married in the future, and later had sexual intercourse on
the faith of that promise (for example, he said "I'll marry you honest" and
she said "Yes, please, I'll marry you!" and they went to bed...;-), they
were then considered to be legally and bindingly married. (The theory
being, that by sleeping together they were assumed to be, since that act
followed the future promise, essentially consenting in terms of the present
to be married, and thus, hey presto, *were* married! It always comes down
to that present tense consent thing in the end ;-) Check out Hay's lectures
on marriage, Stair's institutes, bankton's institutes, erm, just about
anybody's institutes I guess :) Watch out for Skene though, he gets
confused about the meaning of handfasting...
Sharon Krossa, s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk, who really really needs to move on
to another topic...
Smirkyface
s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk (Sharon Krossa) wrote:
> In article <824174...@ellson.demon.co.uk>,
> Charles Ellson <Cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <4fo6kf$n...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>
> > kf...@philos.resnet.ubc.ca "Kirsty Foy" writes:
> >
> >>
> >> Until 1924, if a man said that he would marry a woman if she had sex with
> >> him and she did, they were legally married after the event. There is
> >> another strange one which was abolished in 1924 which I can't remember
> >> (something to do with a declaration, I think). "Habit and repute" is
still
> >> a legal marriage. Perhaps some people used to refer to these other
> >> methods as "jumping the broom" (never heard of it myself) but it
never had
> >> any legal significance.
<snip>
I've only heard of jumping the broom as it refered to African-American weddings
during the time of slavery. I know that African-American couples in the US
still do it today as part of tradition.
--
Brian Mclean
PHOTOGRAPHY
&
SMIRKYFACE
PRODUCTIONS
"life's too short to live the blues"
http://www.netaxs.com/~blmclean
Michael Paterson
>Sharon Krossa, trying to come up with something witty in this space to
>entertain Mi\cheil ;-)
You're doing fine! ;-)
Michael Paterson
I would like to advise all the young American ladies reading this that
if they go to Scotland and get loaded in a bar, a marriage may NOT be
solemnized by the Captain of a darts team, no matter how many members
swear it's true.
Joseph P. Makowiec
>
> Colin Rosenthal (rose...@aauobs.obs.aau.dk) wrote:
> : On 13 Feb 1996 13:46:02 GMT, I Johnston <ia...@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> : >
> : >In England, Quakers are the only group allowed to marry themselves.
>
> : All the others have to marry _someone_ _else_.
>
> Foolish boy. No, they have to be married _by_ someone else. What's more,
> in England only Anglican priests can conduct weddings by right of their
> position: nonconformist ministers and RC priests have to be registrars
> as well, and essentially carry out a civil wedding at the same time as
> the unrecognized religious one.
>
> Hang one, I think Rabbis get to perform marriages too.
For what it's worth: Marriage is a contract, thus can only be entered
into by the parties themselves. In RC theology, thus probably also CoE
and Lutheran, the ministers of marriage are the couple themselves. The
officiant is a witness to the contract on behalf of the Church.
--------------------
Joe Makowiec can be reached at:
mak...@rpi.edu <or> Joe...@aol.com
Homepage: http://www.rpi.edu/~makowj
dpr...@commspecial.com
memory it has always been a Gypsy tradition to jump the broom.
Simian
: with, had a traditional tinkers' wedding, and although I can't remember
: anything off the top of my head about jumping over brooms, there was one
: part of the wedding which involved mixing the waters of the couple - ie
: they both peed into the same bucket, one after the other.
Sound more like tinkLers, to me.
^
-monk
(and i suppose if enough of them were married at the same ceremony,
there'd be a need for a tinker's dam ...)
Gavin Venters
john maxwell <security.j...@nt.com> wrote:
>How does Gretna Green fit intae a' o this?Is it just a local grab at
>tourism,or was there actually some significance to this town in "the
>jumping of the broom"?
> Cheers,
Arguably, Gretna Green is more an aspect of English culture than of Scottish.
The reason for it being a popular location for weddings is that in Scotland
the law allows people to get married at 16 without parental permission. In
England people are only allowed to marry between 16-18 with parental
permission. I think that it might have been quicker to wed there than in
England too - but that's just speculation on my part and not based on any
knowledge of the intricacies of English weddings. Gretna became a popular
place for people to elope to because it's only a sparrow's spit from the
English border. It was the first place that the fugitive couples came to in
their heady flights of passion (etc.).
G.
Ian Morrison
>
> In article <824174...@ellson.demon.co.uk>,
> Charles Ellson <Cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <4fo6kf$n...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>
> > kf...@philos.resnet.ubc.ca "Kirsty Foy" writes:
> >
> >>
> >> Until 1924, if a man said that he would marry a woman if she had sex
with
> >> him and she did, they were legally married after the event. There is
> >> another strange one which was abolished in 1924 which I can't remember
> >> (something to do with a declaration, I think). "Habit and repute" is
still
> >> a legal marriage. Perhaps some people used to refer to these other
> >> methods as "jumping the broom" (never heard of it myself) but it never
had
> >> any legal significance.
> >>
> >> the English).
> >>
> >The relevant date is (before) 1 July 1940, consequent to the Marriage
> >(Scotland) Act 1939. This abolished all forms of irregular marriage
> >except for marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute, and
> >introduced civil marriages to Scotland. As for the first sentence, I
> >suspect you are mixing up irregular marriage with breach of promise.
>
> Yes, it's me again :) I don't think the first poster is really confusing
> irregular marriage with breach of promise -- because if a couple mutually
> consented to get married in the future, and later had sexual intercourse
on
> the faith of that promise (for example, he said "I'll marry you honest"
and
> she said "Yes, please, I'll marry you!" and they went to bed...;-), they
> were then considered to be legally and bindingly married. (The theory
> being, that by sleeping together they were assumed to be, since that act
> followed the future promise, essentially consenting in terms of the
present
> to be married, and thus, hey presto, *were* married! It always comes down
> to that present tense consent thing in the end ;-) Check out Hay's
lectures
> on marriage, Stair's institutes, bankton's institutes, erm, just about
> anybody's institutes I guess :) Watch out for Skene though, he gets
> confused about the meaning of handfasting...
I was going through some notes I made when working in Kilmarnock (over
20 years ago). One reference was to the "Craigengillan" case
which apparently clarified some marriage law in Scotland at the beginning
of the 19th century, or thereabouts. Not being interested in the
subject at the time, I didn't make any fuller notes than that. Can
anyone clarify what it was all about?
> Sharon Krossa, s.kr...@aberdeen.ac.uk, who really really needs to move on
> to another topic...
But we're not going to let her :-)
Ian O. Morrison (i...@nmsdoc.demon.co.uk OR i...@nms.ac.uk)
Scottish Museums Documentation Officer BBS: 0131 226 6527
National Museums of Scotland Tel.: 0131 247 4203
Chambers Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1JF Fax : 0131 220 4819
I Johnston
: I Johnston wrote:
: >
: > Colin Rosenthal (rose...@aauobs.obs.aau.dk) wrote:
: > : On 13 Feb 1996 13:46:02 GMT, I Johnston <ia...@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
: >
: >
: > Foolish boy. No, they have to be married _by_ someone else.
: > Hang one, I think Rabbis get to perform marriages too.
: For what it's worth: Marriage is a contract, thus can only be entered
: into by the parties themselves. In RC theology, thus probably also CoE
: and Lutheran, the ministers of marriage are the couple themselves. The
: officiant is a witness to the contract on behalf of the Church.
An interesting opinion, only marginally devalued by its not
corresponding to reality. In the UK, if you want to marry someone, there
must be an official present (Anglican or CofS minister, Registrar,
Non-conformist minister who is also a registrar, Rabbi) unless you are a
Quaker, in which case a statement made in accordance with Quaker custom
and practice is sufficient.
Ian
Joseph P. Makowiec
Ian, if you would read what I said more carefully, you will notice that I said that the minister
is a witness for the church. He/she is _not_ a party to the contract... Still has to be there,
though.