In 1900, what did it mean if you were engaged for 3 years and your fiance jilted you?

[no_hypocrisy]

I just discovered my grandfather registered to marry a woman, then registered again 4 years later to marry my grandmother in 1904. The first woman and her family sued for breach of promise to marry. All this was archived in newspapers.

Please confirm if I'm guessing correctly: Wouldn't the first woman's prospects for marriage be ruined because of the social humiliation, the fact that she was off the marriage market for four years, she would be a financial burden on her family as she was now deemed an old maid, etc.? Besides the money, what were the goals of suing for breach of promise?

[Maeve]

1. Part of the goal would be to vindicate the woman

To win such a suit means that she would be acknowleged as the victim of a cad, resulting in less humiliation for her and more for him (not that it would be a major problem for him, but still) and this would help restore her prospects. Part of it depends on her social standing; it mattered more to the middle classes than to either upper or lower. And part depends on her age--older marriage was still acceptable and more common than it would be in the post-WWII era.

edited to add--Of course, the money itself would enhance her prospects; a woman with money was always more attractive than a woman without it.

[Freddie]

2. One reason for engagement rings

Back in the day, the etiquette rule was if the man broke the engagement, she kept the ring and could sell it and keep the $$. Recently courts have ruled against this. For instance DH's boss was engaged to a locally famous woman (news anchor) and after he broke it off she refused to give the $100000 ring back. He took her to court and they settled. Cad.

[unblock]

3. didn't work out that way for me.

somewhat different context as we were actually married 10 years. when we got divorced the it was determined that the wedding rings (along with virtually all our other possessions) were community property subject to an equitable split, but her engagement ring was an individual possession of hers she brought into the marriage, so she got to keep it.

this was the ring my grandmother had gotten engaged with, so needless to say my whole family was quite pissed at her for this.
it was a pretty amicable divorce other than that.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. Where did this happen?

What exactly is meant by "registered to marry a woman"? I'm completely unfamiliar with any such thing in this country.

Do you have any idea if the first woman and her family received any money in settlement for the breach of promise?

It feels like a lot of information is missing. If they'd been a public couple during those four years, and everyone expected them to marry, then calling it off was not a nice thing to do. Although I always wonder about engagements that last more than a year. If you want to get married, then get married. Why the delay?

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Altoona, PA

My grandfather took out two marriage licenses in 3.5 years, jilting the first fiancée. Not out of love. He became engaged b/c he believed his prospective brother-in-laws would take him into their businesses.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

7. When I got married in 1980 in the state of Michigan,

the license issued was only good for a very short time. A few days, I think. If it was that way back then in Altoona, then taking out the license and then not marrying is huge.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. That's what I figured too.

My grandfather ruined her life by not only not marrying the original fiancée but registering to marry my grandmother without notice.

[TheOther95Percent]

5. Here's some background

I don't vouch for the truthiness of the facts presented in this newspaper article. It highlights several cases of breach of promise suits.

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/461450/The-revenge-of-the-jilted-brides