| Revision as of 07:15, 7 October 2006 editDr U (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,563 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:50, 7 October 2006 edit undoEquinox137 (talk | contribs)1,706 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| :Common law marriage is a marriage. Abandonment does not equate divorce. ] 07:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | :Common law marriage is a marriage. Abandonment does not equate divorce. ] 07:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::If you aren't convinced, read the wiki article on the subject: ] ] 07:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | ::If you aren't convinced, read the wiki article on the subject: ] ] 07:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::I read it, but it doesn't address the status of common law marraige in pre-Revolutionary America. Furthermore, I've found other sources (the Franklin Institute) that state her first husband was presumed dead in 1727, which seems may render the whole issue moot anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm completly right, but it seems debateable that this woman was a practicing bigamist. I guess it depends on what the laws in 1720's Pennsylvania were on divorce, abandonment, and spouses that were presumed dead. Under these conditions though, it seems that if she were alive, she could have grounds for a lawsuit against Misplaced Pages for libel by labelling her as a bigamist. I really believe she should be taken out of that category at least until those laws are clarified. ] 07:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:50, 7 October 2006
Deborah Read
Hey Dr U, question for ya. How can Deborah Read be a bigamist if 1) her husband abandoned her in 1724, yet 2) she was in a merely common law marraige with Ben Franklin starting six years later? That doesn't seem to me to be the traditional definition of a bigamist. Equinox137 05:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Common law marriage is a marriage. Abandonment does not equate divorce. Dr U 07:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you aren't convinced, read the wiki article on the subject: Common-law marriage Dr U 07:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- I read it, but it doesn't address the status of common law marraige in pre-Revolutionary America. Furthermore, I've found other sources (the Franklin Institute) that state her first husband was presumed dead in 1727, which seems may render the whole issue moot anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm completly right, but it seems debateable that this woman was a practicing bigamist. I guess it depends on what the laws in 1720's Pennsylvania were on divorce, abandonment, and spouses that were presumed dead. Under these conditions though, it seems that if she were alive, she could have grounds for a lawsuit against Misplaced Pages for libel by labelling her as a bigamist. I really believe she should be taken out of that category at least until those laws are clarified. Equinox137 07:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you aren't convinced, read the wiki article on the subject: Common-law marriage Dr U 07:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)