The part I bolded is the potential sticking point in the U.S. In general, a legal marriage in a foreign country is legal in the U.S., but the challenge can be making sure it was legal in that country.
There might be laws about how the marriage was recorded, blood tests, parental consent, length of residency before the marriage, or other things that aren’t required in the U.S. For this reason, most U.S. residents who have an overseas wedding just have the ceremony there but get the actual marriage license in the States. It isn’t technically required, but it’s a lot easier.
I’d be inclined to think she indulged in some dramatic license by having someone make the declaration from the congregation at all. unless the person who brought it up had a particular animosity towards Jane and/or Mr. Rochester and wished to cause her/him/them maximal embarrassment and disruption/inconvenience, they could just as easily have approached the officiant beforehand to do so. Or even approached the bridal couple in advance of the wedding date and declared an intention to expose the impediment unless it were called off.
Considering that there are approximately ten Holy Days of Obligation in the calendar of the RCC, I wonder if the requirement to wait until three of them had elapsed has anything to do with why there’s a well-known tradition of “long” engagements.
It probably is easier to do in the States, but it doesn’t look terribly hard.
For my wife and I, getting married in Japan was a bit of a hassle getting it registered in Taiwan, her home country.
Both Japan and Taiwan (and Korea as well, IIRC) have household registrations which can easily show if a person is married or single, making it difficult, but not impossible to have a bigamous marriage, as can be seen by a special case. When foreigners get married in those countries, they are required to make a sworn statement to their embassy that they are not already married. This is translated and provided as evidence that the person is single. The embassy has no way of actually telling is that statement is true or not.
What’s a blood test anyway? Never did anything like that in Canada. I assumed it was an Rh+/- test to warn of problems later, but generally that’s done as part of prenatal procedures. What condition detectable in such test would prevent a couple from marrying?
In the U.S., it was mostly to detect syphilis. Starting in 1980, states began removing the requirement. Montana is the only state that still requires a blood test (and for women only).
South Korea no longer uses a family register system. Oddly enough, although the new system went into effect on 1 January 2008, it doesn’t seem to be common knowledge among Koreans of my acquaintance (educated Koreans), that the thing’s are no longer used for current reports (marriages, births, divorces, deaths). Oh, the reason the Supreme Court ordered a change in system is because the court found the hujo system to be unconstitutional in that it gave preference to males: only a male could be head of a household, among a few other male-preference issues with the system.
I did something similar at the first (and so far only) wedding ceremony where I was the celebrant. I’m not legally qualified to marry anyone, so they had the official bit at a registry office a few days beforehand. At the appropriate point I said “If anyone here knows of a reason why these two may not be married, you’re too late, so sit on it.”
Are you sure? Because at every CofE wedding service I have been to, the vicar will ask the congregation “If anyone present knows of a reason why these two may not legally marry, they must declare it now.”. Surely if someone comes up with a genuine objection (e.g. “But she is already married to me!” or “They’re brother and sister!”), the service will stop, perhaps temporarily, for at least a cursory investigation of the accusation? And if the vicar is in any doubt they must be obliged to stop the service unless and until the matter is resolved. Otherwise, why is it a requirement to include these words in the service?
My ‘vicar’ told me that he was legally liable if he created a bigamous marriage: that’s why he didn’t like doing marriage ceremonies for people who weren’t members of his congregation. He certainly would have stopped if there was a suggestion of a legal impediment.