| Revision as of 07:13, 7 October 2006 editDr U (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,563 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:15, 7 October 2006 edit undoDr U (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,563 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Hey Dr U, question for ya. How can ] 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. ] 05:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | Hey Dr U, question for ya. How can ] 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. ] 05:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :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) | |||
Revision as of 07:15, 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)