AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L Archives

Archiver > AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS > 2003-11 > 1070222668


From: "Susie Zada" <>
Subject: Re: Marriages and Annulments
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:04:28 +1100
References: <001801c3b778$f8bb7860$8d4bedc1@pbncomputer>


Hi Sue and Julie,

I think you'll find that in the case Sue asked about there would definitely
be NO divorce as there was no marriage - i.e. the "husband" was already
married, therefore the second "marriage" was illegal and I believe a divorce
only applied to a legal marriage.

I could be wrong but my understanding was that an annulment was the
cancellation of the religious sacrament of marriage. For example, if a
Catholic married then there was a valid problem in the marriage, they could
NOT divorce if they wanted to marry in the Catholic church again. They
needed to get an annulment (signed off by Rome!) otherwise they were on the
outer. e.g. I was not permitted to be godmother to my brother's child
because I was a tainted woman - divorced!!!!!!!!!

Happy for others to contribute or contradict!

Regards .... Susie Z


----- Original Message -----
From: "Julie Robinson" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:33 AM
Subject: Marriages and Annulments


> Hello Sue,
>
> It used to be the case (and might still be) that persons not able to
divorce because of cost or finding the means to prove "in flagrante etc"
would arrange that they would separate. After seven years they could make a
legal declaration ("Statutory Declaration" the signature witnessed by a
solicitor or solicitor's clerk designated as being able to do so). What
they were doing was, technically, "wrong" for such a situation as I describe
implies a degree of collusion. But it was done.

This thread: