RootsChat.Com
Wales (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Wales => Montgomeryshire => Topic started by: eric on Monday 27 August 07 17:33 BST (UK)
-
My grandfather Francis John Davies, [seems reasonable] his first wife died in 1895, he married or attempted to marry her sister around 1902. Was he guilty of bigamy? If so where would I find out if he was so charged, he lived at Llanfechain at the time. He was school master there,she was sewing mistress in the same school. The law was changed in 1907 it was known as the "Dead Wife's Sister Marriage Act" after 1907 it was permitted for a man to marry a dead wifes sister.
Can any one please help, Many thanks, Eric.
-
It wouldnt have been Bigamy unless the wife HADNT died...... like most laws, unlikely to be found out if they just got on with it & married - who was going to do the checks when you didnt have to produce any documents anyway ?
-
No he would not have been charged with bigamy but the marriage would be void therefore any children would be illegitimate.
Cheers
Guy
-
Hi,
Many thanks for the reply, It transpires that the marriage did become null and void, the marriage eventually took place in 1914 after the children were born.
Is there any way I can find out where that null and void marriage may have taken place and how would it be declared null and void?
Many thanks, Eric.
-
From my 'small / very limited' knowledge of the British law:
If the statutes did not permit / or prohibited a man marrying his dead wife's sister, there is no need for a declaration, Court Order or other prerogatives for the marriage to be 'null and void'.
The circumstances as outlined, are a state of lawfulness!
Persons cannot contract themselves 'out of the law'
ie if the law does not permit / or prohibits an act, such as the marriage,
then it, the supposed marriage process itself, IS NOT in fact a lawful procedure and therefore
the 'marriage' process itself is 'null and void!!
I note that the male person supposedly 'married' some time after his wife died, BUT, he 'married' before such an event and process was made legal.
In all of the above, and from discussion in earlier posts, I must believe that there was an earlier statute that made such a 'marriage', unlawful.
EDO
certainly NOT 'of silk!!
-
"Since September, 1835, the marriage with a deceased wife's sister has been illegal in England & Wales. Up to that date the marriage was not void, but voidable by an action raised in the Ecclesiastical Court during the lifetime of the parents....
...Parliament finally passed the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act in 1907 after over a half-century of sometimes acrimonious debate; in 1921 this act was modified to allow marriage with a deceased brother's widow. In 1931 the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act legalised marriage between a man and deceased wife's aunts and nieces (& corresponding for a female); the Church of England came into line with civil law in 1940."
Basically any such marriage would not have been seen as bigamous, but incestuous steming from the belief when you married you became as one with your spouse.
If a marriage took place (out of the immediate area) pre 1914 in England and Wales you would expect to see it in the GRO indexes. Unkess such a marriage was stopped (shades of Jane Eyre - but then that is why you married well out of the area you were known in), it took place - if it took place it appears in the quarterly indexes.
Not until the Illegitimacy Act of 1926 were illegitimate children made legitimate by the subsequent marriage of their parents.
Regards
Valda
-
Hi, EDO and VALDO,
I'm never very sure whom I'm relying too. Very many thanks for your interesting replies, they certainly give me a better understanding of a situation that I've puzzled over for some time.
Very many thanks, Eric.
-
No he would not have been charged with bigamy but the marriage would be void therefore any children would be illegitimate.
Cheers
Guy
I don't think you are right Guy. The marriage should not have taken place and was voidable in an ecclesiastical court but my understanding is that if that was not done the marriage was considered legal and the children legitimate. I think you will also find that if there were children of the marriage the court would be unlikely to make it void.
David
-
I don't think you are right Guy. The marriage should not have taken place and was voidable in an ecclesiastical court but my understanding is that if that was not done the marriage was considered legal and the children legitimate. I think you will also find that if there were children of the marriage the court would be unlikely to make it void.
David
To take the last point first there is a legal loop-hole that if there were no children to a marriage it could be interpreted that no sexual intercourse had taken place therefore there was no real marriage and prohibitions re affinity did not apply.
A marriage between a brother and a sister (in the eyes of the church a man and wife are one therefore a sister of one is a sister of the other) would be void not merely voidable as it was in the first degree consanguinity between them. It would, as previously been mentioned, have been an incestuous relationship and therefore unlawful (at the time) in civil and ecclesiastical law.
Cheers
Guy
-
Hi David and Guy,
Thanks for your interesting replies, I really do appear to have raised a hornets nest with this one. I really must get to the bottom of this, it has caused me some confusion for a great deal of time.
Many thanks ,kind regards, Eric.
-
I have a query on this:
My grandfather married his sister-in-law when his wife died.
The children of his second wife thought they had not married, but I found an entry in the GRO for both marriages, the second one in 1917.
Illegal or not?
Vivien
-
Valda's reply earlier seems to cover your query ....
-
I have a query on this:
My grandfather married his sister-in-law when his wife died.
The children of his second wife thought they had not married, but I found an entry in the GRO for both marriages, the second one in 1917.
Illegal or not?
Vivien
The Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act, 1907
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Eframland/acts/1907Act.htm
made it legal for a man to marry his dead wife's sister.
The Deceased Brother’s Widow's Marriage Act, 1921
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Eframland/acts/1921Act.htm
made it legal for a woman to marry her dead husband's brother.
Cheers
Guy
-
Thank you - obviously I couldn't read properly. :-[
Vivien
-
was Valda's answer wrong ???
-
That is not what I meant - just that I was not paying much attention!!!!
-
sorry, I meant Guy's reply !!!!!
-
Okay :)
-
Hi Blodwen, Newf, Behindhindthefrogs,
Your replies are most interesting. "Cannon Law" [Church Law] was the cause of my grand parents losing their positions as school master and sewing mistress, in a Church School. They had four children before they were married in a Register Office in 1914, this being after the 1907 ruling that a man could marry his dead wifes sister. The Church probably accepted they were perhaps legally married circ. 1902 to offer them their posts back as teachers in 1914. The Church being very strict regarding children being born out of wedlock, teachers were regarded as "Pillars of Society"
I still have not solved the situation of whether my grand parents were perhaps married around 1902, I must keep working on it.
Regards, Eric.
-
The 1835 Act is perfectly clear. The marriage was void and the parties were committing an offence by marrying within the prohibited degrees.
I have noted that, in practice at least, no one seemed to bother much and I am trying to find a case where some action was taken or children declared illegitimate.
-
I have three instances within my Conway family where this happened during the 1800's.
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
Hello,
Do you mind telling me whether they were before or after 1835 and whether the marriages lasted till death or whether anyone took any steps to do anything about the situation.
If you prefer please feel free to send me a private message
Regards
Chris
-
The marriages took place after 1835.There were no apparent attempts to interfere with the situation and the examples I have were as been stated originally in this thread,after the death of the original spouse.
Regards
William Russell Jones.