Upon reading the two texts, charivary is explained to be the rebellion against the ill-advised marriage of two people who do not belong together. The rebellious group is derived from France but eventually made its way to New France and Canada.

It is speculated that this group of people took it upon themselves to be the acting arm of the Catholic Church and burdened those who upset the abandoned marital regulations. It was then interesting to read, “the church emerged as the earliest and most consistent opponent of charivari, for the ritual represented a clear assault on its marital regulations” (28).

Often a priest had to marry an “ill-assorted” couple because he had no way to prove that they were impure unless they had confessed so to him. However the charivary could take matters into their own hands and distribute justice where they saw fit. This justice often took forms of fines, and then resorted to odd and loud demonstrations until they were compensated. After being paid the charivary would dispense some of the money to the poor. As a sort of robin-hood act, based on religious motives and racial agendas. Later they transitioned to taking on a more political agenda as they “have the effect of curbing the activities of influential French-Canadians who might have been inclined to speak out in favour of the government. It is interesting to see that we still have groups that resemble these motives today. Although not as public, because of technology, people are often ostracized for acting outside of religion and for working in a corrupt system. Especially in the states we see how easily mobs like this can assemble while acquiring similar racial and traditionalist roles.