I’ve read a couple of stories recently that bought into the myth that non-consummation was grounds for an annulment. Even today, the law is not quite that simple, although many jurisdictions allow non-consummation as grounds for divorce. But back in Georgian and Regency England, the fact that the marriage had not been consummated, if it could be proven, was not grounds for either divorce nor annulment.
First, a definition of terms. Annulment is a legal declaration that a marriage never existed. Divorce is a legal declaration that a marriage is at an end, and the husband and wife no longer have marital obligations one to the other.
Annulments were not quick, they were not painless, and they required one or more of three circumstances. These circumstances were fraud; inability to contract a marriage; and impotence. Even taking the case could make both the husband and the wife social outcasts. If the annulment went through, the woman was reduced to the status of a concubine, and her children became illegitimate. The man had no further obligations to support her or the children.
Fraud could include using a false name with the intention of fooling your intended spouse or their family, or making promises in the marriage settlement you had no ability to carry out. For example, if you settled a non-existent estate on your daughter’s new husband, he could claim this as grounds for annulment. He would not necessarily win — it would be up to the church court to decide the extent to which any of these fraudulent behaviours were intentional, and how much they influenced the decision to marry.
Inability to contract a marriage meant that at the time of the marriage you already had a living spouse, you were related by blood to your intended spouse (closely enough for marriage to be forbidden — there was a list), you were sufficiently insane not to know what you were doing, or you did not have the consent of your guardian if you were under 21.
Proving that the man was impotent or the woman was incapable of sexual intercourse was even more difficult. Even if the man was prepared to admit to such a thing, the judges would not take his word. First came a medical examination. Was there a visible physical abnormality? Did the man show the ability to become aroused? Had the man shared his bed with his wife exclusively for years without the woman losing her virginity? (So no lovers on the side for either of them.)
If he could have an erection with anyone, he was clearly not impotent, and in earlier periods two accomplished courtesans might be hired by the court to test the impotency. By the 19th century, doctors were used, and one does not wish to enquire too closely into their methodologies.
Rats. There go some useful plot lines. But on the other hand, what fun to work your way around them.
The truth is that annulment due to impotence is very easy to obtain if you have the contacts. In Regency times, nitrous oxide and ether were already known as methods of anaesthesia. So a guy who wants to have his marriage annulled (in this hypothetical case it is an arranged marriage, but he absolutely refuses to consummate the marriage because he was forced to leave the woman he loves under blackmail to marry the other partner in the arranged marriage) and meets a doctor, all he has to do is to ask the doctor for an anaesthetic, all the doctor has to do is administer enough ether or nitrous oxide to make him paralysed from the waist down (or if the doctor knows what he is doing and manages to give him a kind of local anaesthetic in the genital region) and no courtesan in the world can get an erection out of him. Marriage annulled, and off to marry the woman you love.
Interesting idea, but I think you might be a bit early with your medical knowledge. Ether and nitrous oxide were both known, but more as party drugs. Their medical use was twenty years off. And they were used to make people silly or unconcious, neither of which would have been convincing to the prostitute or the observers. Still, I reckon you could make a story out of it, if you wrote a guy who didn’t mind word spreading through Society about his impotence. Maybe he’d think it was worth it.
You are right, but I have just discovered that in England coca leaves were chewed and their effects were known as early as 1700. So a doctor who was experimenting with anaesthetics and decided to find out about coca leaves (no kidding, coca leaves started to be used experimentally as a local anaesthetic, a very effective local anaesthetic, in the 1850s) and discovered how to use cocaine alkaloids as a local anaesthetic, could help a university friend of his get out of a forced marriage by anaesthetising his genital area, making it completely impossible for professional courtesans to give him a hard-on. The marriage is annulled and the man goes to New York to make his fortune, with his beloved in tow, while the hero doctor receives postcards from his friend about his life in the Big Apple and the baby he is expecting with his wife while the ex-anaesthetised man’s asshole father chokes on his bile.
One of the effects is as a sexual stimulant, however, so…
It is true that cocaine for recreational use produces euphoria, but in its topical form it is an anesthetic and a vasoconstrictor. Just look up articles on the topical use of cocaine as a local anesthetic in the mid-19th century and you’ll find plenty. What the hell, it’s back in use today as a local anesthetic!
There was a fairly recent movie about annulling an unconsummated marriage in Victorian England. It was supposed to be based on a true story.
Was it the famous case of John Ruskin?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/29/ruskin-effie-marriage-inconvenience-brownell
Non-consummation due to impotence or mental incapacity. Poor fellow.
Hmmm. The fraud one could make for some interesting plots.Impotence, while titillating, not so much and not so likely.
The fraud one is a subplot in Revealed, of course. And I’m using inability to contract in the made-to-order I am currently writing. But impotence would be very tricky to make romantic!
My own marriage certificate states that I was born in 1971, which is the year I was married. My husband still claims he should be able to get an annulment because that would have made me six months old.
How interesting! I always thought that you would have to be desperate to go for an annulment – now I know you would have to be.
Yes, indeed!
Fabulous post even though it does make me remember a lot of my historical reads that do this lol.
I’ve just read one where he wants to wait till his hated parents leave before consummating the marriage, and she thinks he is failing to consummate because he wants an annulment. I suppose we can assume she is ignorant of the law!