RE: Are ships captains allowed to marry people at sea?

[Jasmine]

@samclem

What John is implying here, is that you are obviously very young and have conflated Audrey Hepburn, a great actress in her own right, with Katherine Hepburn,another very good actress.

If you’re talking about breast size, INflated would be a better word than CONflated.

[Acsenray]

I don’t get that breast size comment.

But as an aside, I’ve seen several Audrey Hepburn and Katharine Hepburn movies and I’ve never seen Audrey Hepburn doing something I’d describe as good acting.

[mbh]

I seem to recall reading a National Geographic article about an oceanographer traveling between several different Middle Eastern countries. One of his sailors wanted him to perform a marriage. The sailor apparently had “wives” in several different ports in several different countries, and having the captain officiate was enough to persuade the brides’ families that their daughters were not living in sin.

I believe that sailors have perpetuated the myth for their own purposes, deliberately ignoring the official laws.

[BrotherCadfael]

“Marriages performed by the captain of this vessel are valid only for the duration of the voyage.”

[Melbourne]

@Coralee_s_Papa

There’s also a very satisfying shipboard wedding in Patrick O’Brian’s novel The Surgeon’s Mate. William Babbington, having been trained by Jack Aubrey himself in the duties and privileges of a ship’s master in His Majesty’s Navy, performs the ceremony after a brief reference to the regulation manual.

I’m shocked to learn that this is all–gasp–fiction. (This is only partly a joke. I thought that O’Brian researched his stuff very thoroughly. Apparently the historical novelist was more novelist than historian.)

Hello 2011

I have no reason (yet) to believe that the story was wrong. Marriage before a priest or magistrate only became embedded in English law some years before the novel setting: a Catholic priest would not, I think have been eligible, and a ships captain in the Queens navy (also expected to read the service on Sunday) would have been the closest thing to English law and the state church for miles around and for months if not years on end.

It’s clear that an American ships master has no authority /now/ to preform a marriage unless registered as a celebrant by some American state. Extending that to an English Navy captain /then/ is another step.

[Chronos]

@Jasmine

If you’re talking about breast size, INflated would be a better word than CONflated.

Was that really necessary? That’s exactly the sort of irrelevant reference to women’s bodies that we’ve been trying to discourage.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Melbourne

… a ships captain in the Queens navy…

King’s Navy, at the time of the Aubrey-Maturin books.

And also at the time Mutiny on the Bounty (the 1962 Marlon Brando version) was set, that is, in 1788. Just watched it, and at one point a midshipman, having fallen in love with a young Tahitian woman, asks Capt. Bligh to marry them. The captain refuses (pretty rudely, too), but not because he lacks the authority.

[Ann_Hedonia]

I was reading this thread, somewhat puzzled. Because several years ago two friends of mine were married at sea on a cruise ship by the captain. It was a very big deal and everyone seemed on-board with the concept. Do I need to call them and tell them their marriage validity is suspect? Further, I remember seeing a Princess Cruises promotional video (incessantly, it seemed to be playing every time I turned on the TV in my cabin) featuring a large elaborate wedding at sea.

Googling around, I found this tidbit.

“Through Bermuda law, and because most of the Princess captains have Bermuda licenses to perform marriages, captains aboard Princess cruises Golden Princess, Star Princess, and the Grand Princess may perform marriages aboard ship and at sea.”

Yep, my friends were married on the Golden Princess. And through commercialization, the myth becomes real. A little bit.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

@Elendil_s_Heir

Both Capts. James T. Kirk (“Balance of Terror”) and Jean-Luc Picard (“Data’s Day”) thought they could marry people, and that’s good enough for me, dammit!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarriedAtSea

If Jim Kirk’s shirt is torn, he can do anything.
Even beat Batman.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor

If Jim Kirk’s shirt is torn, he can do anything.
Even beat Batman.

What self-respecting Starfleet captain would preside over a wedding in a torn shirt? Not James T. Kirk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS3PQgCVF4U

[Ranger_Jeff]

This thread brings 2 questions to my mind.

1. Can you have your boat registered (flagged) by The Conch Republic?
2. How does the Conch Republic feel about captains officiating at marriages at sea?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Ranger_Jeff

This thread brings 2 questions to my mind.

1. Can you have your boat registered (flagged) by The Conch Republic?
2. How does the Conch Republic feel about captains officiating at marriages at sea?

1. No, since it’s not an actual polity
2. How could you, or anyone, know what the CR “feels”?

[septimus]

The claim that ship captains cannot preside at a marriage may apply to legal marriage in many or most present-day countries, but I wonder about its general validity. First, one would have to define “marriage”! In Thailand for example, the ceremony that makes cohabitation “not sinful” and legal registration of a marriage are unrelated.

Consider the opinion of Judge Kellogg of the New York Court of Appeals in Fisher v. Fisher, 165 N.E. 460 (NY 1929):

… When the ship was forty miles out from the port of New York, its captain performed a marriage ceremony …

Congress had provided that “every vessel making voyages from a port in the United States to any foreign port” should have an official log book; that every master of such a vessel should make entry therein of “Every marriage taking place on board, with the names and ages of the parties.” (Mason’s U.S. Code, vol. 3, title 46, sec. 201.) “Every marriage taking place on board” is certainly inclusive of marriages other than those sanctioned by the municipal laws of the State of the ship’s ownership. We take it that Congress had thus recognized that on board a ship at sea, notwithstanding the absence of municipal laws so carried, there is nevertheless a law of marriage. That law can be none other than the law, common to all nations, which pronounces valid all consensual marriages between a man and woman who are, in the view of all civilized people, competent to marry. In this view, the marriage between the parties to this action, by force of a Federal statute, which Congress was fully empowered to enact (The Hamilton, supra), was a valid marriage.

Not only did the Judge find this marriage valid, but he calls attention to an act of Congress that seems to make a ship’s master responsible for recording such marriages.

[Irishman]

It’s like people don’t read the column. Cecil addressed Fisher vs. Fisher.

This ambivalence has resulted in decisions on both sides of the fence. In Fisher vs. Fisher the court ruled a marriage by a ship’s captain valid; in an 1898 case in California, Norman vs. Norman, the court ruled the opposite. It’s important to note that in Fisher the court did not specifically single out ships’ captains (as opposed to say, mailmen) as having the power to perform marriages; rather it ruled that, absent a statute to the contrary, and subject to certain other conditions, an exchange of vows between consenting parties constituted a valid marriage — as I read it, whether there was an officiant or not. In other words, marriage by ship’s captain, or by anybody other than a recognized minister, JP, etc., was a type of common-law marriage.

Also, Ann Hedonia,

So far as I can tell, sea captains in the United States cannot now and have not ever been able to perform marriages at sea or anywhere else, unless they also happen to be recognized ministers or JPs or something.

Your example of Bermuda fits into that category. They have licenses to perform the ceremonies. Probably smart PR for Princess and Bermuda.

[septimus]

@Irishman

It’s like people don’t read the column. Cecil addressed Fisher vs. Fisher.

Uhh … The Master has spoken? He cites one case with a Captain’s marriage ruled valid; one without. Should we go for 2-out-of-3?

A close reading of Fisher suggests the ceremony might as well have been performed by a waiter.

And Dear Master missed the significance of “that every master [Captain] of such a vessel should make entry therein of every marriage taking place on board.” The significance of anyone presiding over a marriage is to witness. Judge Kellogg noted that Congress gave the specific duty to the Captain.

A clear-cut answer? No, hardly. Is the generalization that Ship’s Captains never perform marriages too facile? Certainly, whatever “Cecil” might think.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

I read Fisher to suggest that the captain (or other responsible officer) must, under Federal law, note any shipboard weddings in the log, but not that the captain necessarily has the authority to officiate over the wedding. The happy couple could have been married by a member of the clergy they invited along for the occasion, or a vacationing priest who just happened to be available and willing to perform the ceremony.

[Ranger_Jeff]

It strikes me the Master must log a wedding, sort of like a Clerk of Courts must record a wedding.

[Flyer]

If the ship is registered to a Common Law jurisdiction, then the Captain has the authority to perform a marriage, just like anybody else does.

[Lord_Feldon]

@Flyer

If the ship is registered to a Common Law jurisdiction, then the Captain has the authority to perform a marriage, just like anybody else does.

The vast majority of common law jurisdictions now require some form of marriage license.

[Quercus]

@Elendil_s_Heir

I read Fisher to suggest that the captain (or other responsible officer) must, under Federal law, note any shipboard weddings in the log, but not that the captain necessarily has the authority to officiate over the wedding. The happy couple could have been married by a member of the clergy they invited along for the occasion, or a vacationing priest who just happened to be available and willing to perform the ceremony.

I read the statue quoted in the Fisher opinion (based only on the quote in this thread) to be that the captain must record marriages, but that doesn’t imply authority to carry them out-- after all, presumably the Captain must also record deaths but that doesn’t imply he (or anyone else) has the general authority to cause them.

The Fisher opinion seems to run with that pretty far, in my opinion (as someone pretty ignorant of both family and maritime law). I assume the judge was looking for a way to use the general and sensible rule of “If everyone involved acts like it’s a valid marriage for an extended period of time, it is valid, regardless of any minor technical issues”, but the legal reasoning seems pretty shaky to me. It’s a pretty big jump from Congress writing a law about ship management and adding a couple words saying marriages are one of many things to be recorded, to Congress clearly intending that ships should be a marriage anarchy zone, with marriages have no rules at all but legally binding in the U.S. Again I’m ignorant of maritime law, but I would presume there’s some locality’s legal code in force on a ship (again, ships are not penalty-free-murder zones), so why wouldn’t that code for marriages be in force too?