GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2011-02 > 1298093539
From: taf <>
Subject: Re: Ancestry of Beatrix de Braose/de Brewes (who m Hugh Shirley)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:32:19 -0800 (PST)
References: <mailman.8.1298056897.27238.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><6e90aa3c-50bd-4d9a-a8a8-52687d8473ed@f18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com><mailman.13.1298068751.27238.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><a36f83cc-68bb-499d-baa5-c402d87396e3@o20g2000yqk.googlegroups.com><mailman.15.1298070168.27238.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
On Feb 18, 3:02 pm, Wjhonson <> wrote:
> Sorry that's an enormous stretch.
> That a woman would not know for several years... whether her husband was living or dead, even when he filed suit against her.
> Come on. That's got to be one of the silliest things I've ever heard.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Thompson <>
> To:
> Sent: Fri, Feb 18, 2011 2:50 pm
> Subject: Re: Ancestry of Beatrix de Braose/de Brewes (who m Hugh Shirley)
>
> On Feb 18, 10:38 pm, Wjhonson <> wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that Peter and Joan never married ? Or are you claiming that
>
> Joan's marriage to Alan was bigamous ?
>
> I'm not claiming anything. I'm stating that nobody has yet found
>
> evidence of a divorce.
>
> Yes- unlawful marriages, including bigamy happened, especially during
>
> chaotic periods when nobody was sure who was alive and who was dead!
>
> Doug Thompson
>
> -------------------------------
I don't see the plague having this effect on the rural gentry. Its
not like the London outbreak of DeFoe, with everyone of means (and as
many without who could wing it) scattering in all directions, then the
Great Fire destroying the places where they might reconnect. I don't
find it credible that Joan wouldn't have known the fate of her
husband, and would have had no qualms about immediately remarrying,
AND when everyone found out she would have been permitted to stay with
her new 'husband', the marriage being invalid on its face. Not
knowing the fate of your first husband doesn't let you call a mulligan
on the first marriage and start afresh, especially if he later shows
up.
There certainly were irregular unions of various types, but we tend to
know about them precisely because, as irregular unions, they tended to
produce more paperwork than usual, not less. Excommunications,
challenged inheritance, both civil and ecclesiastical involvement,
etc. A societally tolerated bigamy, passing entirely without notice,
seems extremely unlikely.
(Or maybe the property Peter was suing Alan over wasn't Joan's, it was
Joan.)
taf
This thread: