Anyone come across an arrangement like this ?

[Berlin-Bob]

Just for information:

I've added this topic, and the topic on Stan's link to the other topics on Marriage Rules in the
RootsChat Reference => Lexicon ^{(click here)}
(Tip: click on a category - on the right - for related topics)

Bob

[stanmapstone]

Another example:
My gt-gt-grandfather's sister married in London in 1867 and emigrated with her husband to Kansas.  She died in 1877 after the birth of her 5th child.  A  SOS must have been sent to her family in Huntingdonshire, because her younger sister then travelled out to the US and married the widower in early 1878.  They had another 6 children after that and were apparently very happy.  Maybe the authorities out there on the prairies weren't too bothered about niceties.

Gillg

By the 1840s, Virginia, was the only state in which such marriages still were disallowed.
In a Parliamentary Commissioners Report (1847-8) it was found that public opinion was not offended by such marriages and unions with the deceased wife's sister were far and away the most common within the prohibited degrees. In five districts in England, there were 1,364 unions within the prohibited
degrees between 1835 and 1848. Of these, 90% were with the deceased wife's sister.

Stan

[veeblevort]

I had the case in my tree, that a woman married in 1872.
At the 1881 census she was a widow living with her brother in law,
her sons listed as his nephews.
She married the brother-in-law in 1887 declaring herself a spinster.
1891 they were listed as husband and wife with the children being his.

I made these notes at the time, but can't guarantee their accuracy:

Note: The restriction (no 17) in the Book of Common Prayer of 1662
that "a woman may not marry her husband's brother" was not removed
until the Marriage Act of 1907, while the restriction (no 18)  that
"a man may not marry  his brother's wife" was not removed until the
Marriage Act of 1921.

Sadly then, the second marriage was unlawful. Perhaps she knew this
when declaring herself a spinster.

Oddly, from 1907, it was theoretically lawful for  her to marry the brother
but unlawful until 1921 for him to marry her.

[floggle toggle]

Thankyou all for some very interesting replies.
However, while I understand WHY the church authorities did not approve, - believing that on marriage a man and wife became one flesh, I would point out

Therefore why is there a prohibition against marrying a non-blood relation i.e. your dead wife’s sister, which is safe (genetic wise) is it just against to church Law? While it is ok to marry a cousin i.e. blood relation, which is not safe, i.e. an inherited defect etc.

The first part of the question, is against church WRITTEN law but
As Stan put it in May -

.... However many couples ignored the law, and many clergy overlooked it. In fact there were petitions from clergymen who implored that a Bill might be passed, since many of their parishioners had already married their sisters-in-law, under the belief that this was the best thing for the children, and of course it was the best thing for the children. However as late as 1949 a Marriage Act was passed that, among other provisions, prohibited marriage between a man and his divorced wife's sister.

Stan

As many clergy overlooked it, what stance would the "senior" clergy take? Also as it is the state which makes these acts, if one of these forbidden marriages was "caught out" what would happen?
What would the church do? What would the state do? And would this be criminal or civil Law?

And yes I agree

Legislation often takes a very long time to catch up with public opinion or new information

Linda

The reason for asking is, like many others I have forbidden marriages in my family. I do not mind, that is what happened then, I am not shocked, but, other people might be.
Therefore, if this was "just" a civil rather than a criminal offence "it might make the pill easier to swallow". Look at the Australians, some of them did not like to admit they were descended from a transported convict - no offence to Australians.

floggle toggle

[stanmapstone]

Briefly, direct affinity was a bar to marriage. This rule had been founded chiefly on interpretations of the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. Formerly by law in England, marriages within the degrees of affinity were voidable, but could only be annulled by an ecclesiastical court during the lives of both parties; in other words, the incapacity was only a canonical, not a civil, disability. By the Marriage Act 1835 all marriages of this kind not disputed before the passing of the act were declared absolutely valid, while all subsequent to it were declared null, and void. This rendered null in England, and not merely voidable, a marriage with a deceased wife's sister. A void marriage is one which has never come into real existence.
See http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1835marAct.htm

Stan

[floggle toggle]

Thankyou Stan for that, and sorry to go on, but my problem is, I mailed my tree to my brother in Australia. He has pointed out that in our Grandmother's family, a female cousin (by blood) went to Australia, married a Yorkshireman (who died) and she then married his brother. Being in Australia, it was legal.
Then on our mother's side (in Devon) there was a cousin (by marriage) who married and had 5 children; he then married one of her sisters (no death cert etc. found yet) and had another 10 children. 
After reading your reply and some of the Rootschat reference works, things are a little clearer: Legislation (and the church) often takes a very long time to catch up with public opinion or new information
But, going back to your comment -

.... However many couples ignored the law, and many clergy overlooked it. In fact there were petitions from clergymen who implored that a Bill might be passed, since many of their parishioners had already married their sisters-in-law, under the belief that this was the best thing for the children, and of course it was the best thing for the children. However as late as 1949 a Marriage Act was passed that, among other provisions, prohibited marriage between a man and his divorced wife's sister.

Stan

And my comment

As many clergy overlooked it, what stance would the "senior" clergy take? Also as it is the state which makes these acts, if one of these forbidden marriages was "caught out" what would happen?
What would the church do? What would the state do? And would this be criminal or civil Law?

So far, everything I have read says what IS forbidden, but NOT what the consequence's would be and that is the crux of the problem that I am unable to answer.

floggle toggle

[stanmapstone]

The marriage under the 1835 act it was null and void, so that, one result would be that in law the children were illegitimate, and this could cause problems for inheritance. As it was a civil offence and not a felony there was no 'penalty' stated in the act.
See http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1907Act.htm

It is clearly the duty of clergyman, superintendent registrars, and others who may be brought into communication with parties wishing to form such alliances, to explain to them the actual state of the law on the subject, and to point out that a so-called marriage of this nature would be a nullity, and the issue illegitimate.(The Marriage Law of England, 1873)


Stan

[floggle toggle]

Thankyou Stan.
Now I understand.
                          Happy Christmas 

floggle toggle

[jamison]

Many in my family tree married the brother or the sister of the deceased.

The reverend just turned a blind eye to the situation l guess both in the city and countryside.

also...

In my tree the older sister had to marry first before the younger ones and this would also tie in with the above when the older sister died the next youngest would marry him if there were children involved.