Family Historian User Group

I assume the Complicated diagram Version 5 (14797) description all took place before 1907 when the law changed.

Up until then you were prohibited from marrying your sister in law (or brother in law), as they were technically i.e. Legally, regarded as your sister (or brother). Any such marriage was therefore deemed incestuous, and banned!

Regardless of who he had the children with, it was still illegal to marry his wife's sister!

Notwithstanding the law, there is a case in my own tree where a woman married her dead husband's brother!

Gowermick wrote:... Regardless of who he had the children with , it was still illegal to marry his wife's sister!

But it happens so often

And being pedantic, I am unclear whether the word "illegal" is strictly correct - it might be - it's certainly contrary to the rules of the game, but I'd need to spend an hour or two re-reading Rebecca Probert, who deliberately chooses to avoid using the word "illegal", if I recall correctly.

Adrian,
I used the word illegal in so far it was against the law! The law before 1907 followed canon law, as laid down by the church, insofar as it was against the bible! Whether you and I agree with or not, it is not the point. At that time, as far as the law was concerned, your sister in law was regarded as equivalent to your sister, who we agree we couldn't and shouldn't marry!

I must admit though, I thought it was banned in order to stop someone bumping off their wife ( or husband) in order to marry their sister or brother
Genetically, as there is no close relationship, I can't see a problem, but in 1907 genetics was a science for the future!

Just to lighten the conversation.

What is the difference between illegal and unlawful?

Illegal is a sick bird. LOL

Unlawful is the correct term., meaning against the law.
Murder is legally described as "The unlawful killing of....."

John

Gowermick wrote:Adrian, I used the word illegal in so far it was against the law! ...

Well, I wouldn't argue that it was against the rules of the game and frankly, I can't come up with a better term myself - but purely in the spirit of having "fun" battering my head against trying to understand these concepts, I shall quote p.18 of Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists (not merely is she is a Professor of Law but she's been on TV with Lucy Worsley!) - on that page, she says, "I have avoided using the word illegal [it has] unfortunate and potentially misleading connotations of criminality".

P61 also mentions that "a marriage within the prohibited degrees could only be challenged while both parties to it were still alive". This appears to make it voidable, rather than void, to use her terminology. The point about that, is that offspring of a marriage within the prohibited degrees were to be considered legitimate, unless the marriage was challenged and annulled by the courts during the life of the 2 parties. Whereas I think that a void marriage - if discovered - can be retrospectively annulled even after the death of the parties.

So anyone descended from a marriage to a deceased wife's sister can rest assured - unless the marriage was annulled during their lifetime - then the children of the marriage were legitimate. Or then again, you may be disappointed not to have the notoriety!

My understanding on the void issue is somewhat different - see the interesting paper at
http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_art ... -1835-1907

Also be aware that the repeal of the deceased wife's sister marriage rule happened well before 1907 in some parts of the British Empire - in New Zealand it was swept away in 1880 (see http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/ ... 880n57341/ )

DonF wrote:My understanding on the void issue is somewhat different ...

Aaargh yes - I wrote up what I had found, without realising that I should have turned the page - yes, as per Don's link, from 1835-ish, for a number of years, marriages in the forbidden degrees after the Act were void not voidable. Tell you what - go and buy Rebecca Probert's book, instead of listening to me try to convey her ideas....

As for NZ, well, that wouldn't be the first time that I've been impressed by some of their ideas.

To add a bit more humor.

The German Green Party had a delightful and telling little expression a few years back:

Legal. Illegal. Es ist egal.

(Paraphrasing slightly since this is a family forum.)

johnmorrisoniom wrote:Just to lighten the conversation.

What is the difference between illegal and unlawful?

Illegal is a sick bird. LOL

Unlawful is the correct term., meaning against the law.
Murder is legally described as "The unlawful killing of....."

John

Re Illegal v unlawful

I recently read an interesting definition (on-line legal dictionary, so it must be true ):

Illegal is doing something that was specifically banned by law
Unlawful was doing something that wasn't specifically allowed in law.

Some light hearted examples
i.e if one walked on the grass when the sign said keep off the grass, that was acting ilegally.
If the sign said only ball games allowed on this field, and one used the field to fly a model aeroplane, that was acting unlawfully

Just why murder is unlawfully taking someones life....is beyond me. But I assume that as the crime is so obvious, that nowhere in the statute books does it specifically spell it out!

Gowermick wrote:... Just why murder is unlawfully taking someone's life....is beyond me. But I assume that as the crime is so obvious, that nowhere in the statute books does it specifically spell it out!

I know a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, etc, etc, but I can't help speculating (and apologies to all those bored by this)....

If your illegal v unlawful definition were halfway true, then could "unlawfully taking" reflect the idea that murder was originally a crime against the Common Law, the whole point of which is that it isn't written down? It's simply what is understood to be the Law, starting back in "time out of mind" (which actually isn't that far back - it's the start of the reign of Richard I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_immemorial) Oh, and with judge-made precedent interpreting the Common Law.

Adrian,
I give up! I tried looking further into this but it became so tortuous, that my head spun! I think this is deliberate on behalf of the legal profession, so us plebs have to pay lots of money for someone to help us

If it was easy, who'd need lawyers

Hi All

I had not even thought about the 'legal' point of view - it happened in 1916 and 1923 - all in America. Very interested points - thank you.

Lesley