S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/19/2012 4:25 PM, abc wrote:
Nick Spalding wrote:

"Beginning in the 1860s, bills were introduced in Parliament annually to
allow marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but it wasn't until 1907
that the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act finally made it legal.
And not until 1921 (!) did the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act
make marriage to a brother-in-law legal."

Was it a requirement for the former spouse to be deceased?
Couldn't you simply divorce your wife and marry her sister?
Or did that require a separate act perhaps?


http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/history.pdf

"It does not apply in cases of divorce where the former spouse is still
living."

Which begs the question: What applies in those cases?
Some other law? Nothing at all?
abc

On 10/20/2012 4:21 AM, abc wrote:
S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/19/2012 4:25 PM, abc wrote:
Nick Spalding wrote:

"Beginning in the 1860s, bills were introduced in Parliament
annually to
allow marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but it wasn't until 1907
that the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act finally made it legal.
And not until 1921 (!) did the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act
make marriage to a brother-in-law legal."

Was it a requirement for the former spouse to be deceased?
Couldn't you simply divorce your wife and marry her sister?
Or did that require a separate act perhaps?


http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/history.pdf

"It does not apply in cases of divorce where the former spouse is still
living."

Which begs the question: What applies in those cases?
Some other law? Nothing at all?

My understanding is that as long as the previous spouse is alive,
marriage to his/her sibling is prohibited.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:10:37 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:

In message
S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/18/2012 8:56 PM, Arcadian Rises wrote:

Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

In the Old Testament, yes. Not all that long ago in the UK, it was
against the law to marry your deceased spouse's sibling.

That doesn't seem very Christian

I don't know the origin of that law but it almost certainly derived from
church law.

A law against marrying your deceased spouse's sibling would have been a
deterent to, what shall we call it, "managed decease" of your spouse.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
...

We can however approach this empirically. When family histories
offer no evidence anyone found this confusing 150 years ago, it is
fair to say there was probably no such confusion.

As the majority of people would have been illiterate the form in which
names appeared in writing would have been irrelevant. In speech there
would have been ways of making clear who was being spoken about if it
was not obvious in context. Those colloquial forms would probably not
have made it into written records.

We can do better (more empirically) than this. British censuses record
everyone's name from 1841 onwards, and the population was mostly
literate even before attendance at schools (state-funded since 1871)
became compulsory. Even before these Victorian reforms, the church
of England was punctilious about recording births, marriages and deaths.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/20/2012 4:21 AM, abc wrote:
S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/19/2012 4:25 PM, abc wrote:
Nick Spalding wrote:

"Beginning in the 1860s, bills were introduced in Parliament
annually to
allow marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but it wasn't until 1907
that the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act finally made it legal.
And not until 1921 (!) did the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act
make marriage to a brother-in-law legal."

Was it a requirement for the former spouse to be deceased?
Couldn't you simply divorce your wife and marry her sister?
Or did that require a separate act perhaps?


http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/history.pdf

"It does not apply in cases of divorce where the former spouse is still
living."

Which begs the question: What applies in those cases?
Some other law? Nothing at all?

My understanding is that as long as the previous spouse is alive,
marriage to his/her sibling is prohibited.

But what is that understanding based on?

The statement that a law "does not apply to" situation X does not mean
that situation X is illegal, it merely means that that particular law
has no say at all on the subject of situation X.
abc

"Ophelia" wrote in message
...


"GordonD" wrote in message
...

Hi, O! Didn't know you hung out here (or are you in gardening?)

You might be surprised where I hang out ... *mysterious wink*


makes mental note to keep the curtains drawn at all times
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 10/20/2012 4:21 AM, abc wrote:
S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/19/2012 4:25 PM, abc wrote:
Nick Spalding wrote:

"Beginning in the 1860s, bills were introduced in Parliament
annually to
allow marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but it wasn't until 1907
that the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act finally made it legal.
And not until 1921 (!) did the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act
make marriage to a brother-in-law legal."

Was it a requirement for the former spouse to be deceased?
Couldn't you simply divorce your wife and marry her sister?
Or did that require a separate act perhaps?


http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/history.pdf

"It does not apply in cases of divorce where the former spouse is still
living."

Which begs the question: What applies in those cases?
Some other law? Nothing at all?

My understanding is that as long as the previous spouse is alive, marriage
to his/her sibling is prohibited.


How about her mother?

--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 17:12:52 +0100, "GordonD"
wrote:

"Ophelia" wrote in message
...


"GordonD" wrote in message
...

Hi, O! Didn't know you hung out here (or are you in gardening?)

You might be surprised where I hang out ... *mysterious wink*


makes mental note to keep the curtains drawn at all times

ObAUE: Is that drawn meaning open or drawn meaning closed?

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

In uk.rec.gardening Lewis wrote:
In researching the family tree a couple of decade ago I came across one
ancestor who had 3 wives, all three died in childbrith, and in total
they had 21 children. *TWO* of those children lived to adulthood.
Granted, those numbers are a bit extreme.

I would be inclined to suspect some kind of genetic problem going on
there. Was there any gender split between survivors and non-survivors?

In article , wrote:
In uk.rec.gardening Lewis wrote:
In researching the family tree a couple of decade ago I came across one
ancestor who had 3 wives, all three died in childbrith, and in total
they had 21 children. *TWO* of those children lived to adulthood.
Granted, those numbers are a bit extreme.

I would be inclined to suspect some kind of genetic problem going on
there. Was there any gender split between survivors and non-survivors?

I wouldn't. That was a little extreme, but not enough to raise alarm
flags at many times and in many places.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:07:25 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:10:37 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:

In message
S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/18/2012 8:56 PM, Arcadian Rises wrote:

Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

In the Old Testament, yes. Not all that long ago in the UK, it was
against the law to marry your deceased spouse's sibling.

That doesn't seem very Christian

I don't know the origin of that law but it almost certainly derived from
church law.

A law against marrying your deceased spouse's sibling would have been a
deterent to, what shall we call it, "managed decease" of your spouse.

I've always assumed, without enquiry, that it was the "husband and
wife are one flesh" thing. You can't marry your sibling.

--
Mike.

On Oct 20, 5:18*pm, Mike L wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:07:25 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"





wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:10:37 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:

In message
*S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/18/2012 8:56 PM, Arcadian Rises wrote:

Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

In the Old Testament, yes. Not all that long ago in the UK, it was
against the law to marry your deceased spouse's sibling.

That doesn't seem very Christian

I don't know the origin of that law but it almost certainly derived from
church law.

A law against marrying your deceased spouse's sibling would have been a
deterent to, what shall we call it, "managed decease" of your spouse.

I've always assumed, without enquiry, that it was the "husband and
wife are one flesh" thing. You can't marry your sibling.

--
Mike.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, you could, in Biblical times.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:23:54 -0700 (PDT), Arcadian Rises
wrote:

On Oct 20, 5:18*pm, Mike L wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:07:25 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"





wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:10:37 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:

In message
*S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/18/2012 8:56 PM, Arcadian Rises wrote:

Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

In the Old Testament, yes. Not all that long ago in the UK, it was
against the law to marry your deceased spouse's sibling.

That doesn't seem very Christian

I don't know the origin of that law but it almost certainly derived from
church law.

A law against marrying your deceased spouse's sibling would have been a
deterent to, what shall we call it, "managed decease" of your spouse.

I've always assumed, without enquiry, that it was the "husband and
wife are one flesh" thing. You can't marry your sibling.

--
Mike.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, you could, in Biblical times.

See "Old Testament" above.

On 21/10/12 1:36 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

ObAUE: Is that drawn meaning open or drawn meaning closed?


Serious question: can "drawn" ever mean the curtains are open? I would
have thought that it had to be "drawn back" or "open" and that "drawn"
always meant they were closed.

This is different from the action of drawing and the verb to draw the
curtains, on the other hand, which are always ambiguous.

--
Robert Bannister

In uk.rec.gardening Robert Bannister wrote:
ObAUE: Is that drawn meaning open or drawn meaning closed?
Serious question: can "drawn" ever mean the curtains are open?

Perhaps if you end up with a picture of them at the end ...