Bristol_and_Somerset-L Archives

Archiver > Bristol_and_Somerset > 2000-09 > 0967962566


From: Punkin <>
Subject: Re: Legal Marriages
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 02:29:26 -0400
References: <004001c01434$42413b00$9a88bcd4@default>


The delay may have been due to waiting for dispensation from the Archbishop of
Canterbury.

Punkin

JohnO wrote:

> Jill points out (as below) the possible confusing
> relationships:
>
> "But if you think about it the consequences for the next generation are not
> so simple. Children from the first marriage would be both 1st cousins and
> step-siblings to the those of the second."
>
> In one of my families at the turn of the 18C I have two unmarried
> brothers. The older marries a young widow and the younger brother,
> in time,marries the widow's daughter. The re-married woman now becomes
> step mother to the younger man and also his mother-in-law.
> The younger brother has married his step sister. What a shemozzle!
> The redeming feature lest the whole thing become a Feydeau farce
> or a Restoration comedy, is that only the younger son has children.
>
> One aspect that has always puzzled me is why the younger couple waited
> so long to marry. Both families were very well to do (the daughter was
> a fairly considerable heiress)so poverty was no explanation.They eventually
> married when they were 30 and 27 respectively and with 5 illegitimate
> children. A further 4 came after marriage.
>
> The 5 illegitimate ones were all baptised(I think, but can't confirm this,
> for the second time) together some 9 years after the parents married
> and a year after their father's death. It is interesting that the parish register
> has a note that the birthdates were supplied by the uncle and not the
> mother. Perhaps because the uncle was also the lord of the manor,
> the rector and held the advowson - the priest knew on which side his
> bread was buttered !
>
> Any thoughts or suggestions as to the delayed marriage?
>
> John Overholt
> Kingston upon Thames,Eng

This thread: