Married dead wifes sister.

[eric]

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.

[Necromancer]

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 ?

[Guy Etchells]

No he would not have been charged with bigamy but the marriage would be void therefore any children would be illegitimate.
Cheers
Guy

[eric]

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.

[EDO]

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!!

[Valda]

"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

[eric]

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.

[behindthefrogs]

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

[Guy Etchells]

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