What is the legal definition of a common -law wife?

[GreasyJack]

@UDS

Not quite. Originally common law and ecclesiastical law were aligned - a marriage was created by the mutual promises of the spouses, followed by physical consummation. You didn’t need any witnesses or celebrant at all, never mind a church service, although both witnesses and formal services were usual, and keenly encouraged by both social convention and church practice. A “clandestine marriage” was one formed by the couple alone; other people only knew about it after the event, if and when the couple told them.

So what is the significance of the “common law” part of the term common law marriage?

[barbitu8]

States have statutes providing for valid marriages. The common law marriage does not comply with the state statutes. A statute in derogation of common law must be strictly construed. If the statute does not abolish explicitly the c/l marriage that remains a viable alternative. Prior to its abolishment in England in the 18th C the c/l marriage was a valid marriage

[sisu]

In Australia if you live as a couple you are in a de facto relationship which is essentially the same as marriage. Can be same sex as well.

[Northern_Piper]

@UDS

It wasn’t until 1754 that the English adopted a similar rule when, under Lord Hardwicke’s Act (“An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage”), a marriage ceremony became essential to the formation of a valid marriage. As already noted in this thread, that Act did not directly apply in the North American colonies

Lord Hardwicke’s Act was in force in Upper Canada, via the principle of statute reception.

[UDS]

@Northern_Piper

Lord Hardwicke’s Act was in force in Upper Canada, via the principle of statute reception.

Yes. It didn’t directly apply in the colonies as an Imperial act overriding existing colonial law. Whether it applied in any particular colony depended on whether it had been incorporated into the law of the colony by reception, adoption or reenactment.