LONDON-L Archives

Archiver > LONDON > 2003-02 > 1046022474


From: "Janet Foreman" <>
Subject: Re: [Lon] Re: Different Father - explanation
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:48:03 -0000
References: <F79l4ipt7AvTC6DBQvG000268a4@hotmail.com> <007401c2db56$0c7d3dc0$8bcac940@default>


I too have marriage to a deceased wife's sister, this occurred in Devon in
the 1800's- to be precise 1871 in Stoke Damarel Devon. William LAITY
married his cousin Mary LAITY, then upon her decease her sister Amelia
LAITY. At the time of the marriage all parties were domiciled in Cornwall.
Janet Foreman
CFHS 4194
researching HITCHENS LAITY
----- Original Message -----
From: "diane rivet" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Lon] Re: Different Father - explanation


> I don't mean to butt in here but I believe that some marriages did take
> place. My ancestor died in 1865 and her husband married her sister in
1869
> and I have the marriage certificate for it.
> Diane
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jill warland" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 11:46 AM
> Subject: [Lon] Re: Different Father - explanation
>
>
> How interesting... I had no idea. I suppose then - if this was the case -
> that they might not have married, and just carried on as if they were?
> (What would the neighbours say???) :c)
>
> ~jill
>
> As has been pointed out .... marriage to a brother-in-law was illegal at
> the time. It *did* happen but technically it shouldn't have.
>
> Marriage to 'deceased wife's sister' became legal in 1907 but marriage
> to 'deceased husband's brother' was later still ... 1921.
>
> Liz (Greenwich UK)
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>
> ==== LONDON Mailing List ====
> London-Middlesex Surnames List:
> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/london.html
>
>
>
> ==== LONDON Mailing List ====
> Send messages and queries of general interest to
> the list, but personal messages DIRECTLY to the individual.
>
>

This thread: