Hello Angela, and the List... Re your re-interpretation of an interpretation of forbidden Marriage Laws and the fact that these Laws originated in 1560 and remained unchanged until the 20th Century... It should be noted that the original Laws which the 1560 Civil Laws were based on were laid out in the Old Testament, 'Leviticus' and 'Deuteronomy' which as far as I know goes back well over 5,000 years, if we take into account that they were originally taken from Hebrew Scripture and transposed into English and Latin... Leviticus Chapter 18 does say that the Lord spake unto Moses (King James' version) translated from the Hebrew... "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's wife"... "And the man who lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness." At no point does it mention the 'WIDOW' of the father...it may seem to be splitting hairs, but the interpretation of the Laws based on Leviticus and Deuteronomy, is relevant in understanding not only Civil Law, but Biblical Law... I suspect that sometimes there was a conflict between the two.....if one reads further this point will be made more clear... I have an example which I mentioned before re the vagaries of intermarriage... I do not profess to be an expert on the subject only note that these Marriages did take place 'Legally', were not contested or disproved, and not as may be supposed without knowledge by the Ministers that these events were occurring...or indeed that these events did not take place in some underhanded manner. The statement 'they were likely from different Parishes' was unlikely to make any difference, because this is why they read Banns in both Parishes, in order that such a situation was unlikely to occur. Also someone who knew the couple's history was required to go with them to attend the Marriage...i.e. witnesses... The specific instance which I have mentioned before is as follows. Hannah Dixon my 3Xs Great Aunt, married firstly 1) William Hughes 11 Feb 1798 Cathedral of St. Peters Sheffield IGI Batch # M007752 Source Call No.#0919328 Printout call no. 69090645. He died very soon after their Marriage... According to the Family Historian a cousin of Hannah Dixon, "William Hughes was a Silver Polisher- Elizabeth Dixon was very young when she was first married- William was a very worthy man- she afterwards married William's brother: 2) Francis Hughes, by whom she had a numerous and respectable family... IGI Batch no. M007752 Source call no. 0919328 Printout call no. 6909645. St Peter's Church Sheffield.29 Feb 1714. from the account of Charles Dixon Historian. It should also be mentioned that Hannah Dixon's brother Rev. Francis Dixon was a strict Dissenting Minister of Lee Croft Chapel, for many years, and he must have been aware of his sister's Marriages at the Cathedral.... It is unlikely that he would not have intervened if he thought that there was even a hint of impropriety...both Francis and Hannah were probably influenced by the following... It is written in Leviticus that "And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing, " Bear in mind that this would be if the brother was still alive"...I say this, because, from Deuteronomy Chapter 25, Verse 5."If Bretheren dwell together and one of them shall die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: Her husband's brother shall go in unto her and take her to him to wife and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. Verse 6). gives a reason for this: And it shall be that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.(This is exactly what happened in the case of Hannah Dixon, her first child was named for her dead husband, 'William'.) Verse 7)And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders and say, my husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perforn the duty of my husband's brother. Verse 8) Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say I like not to take her; Verse 9) Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. verse 10) And his name shall be called in Israel., The house of him that hath his shoe loosed... It is very likely that the Old Testament was consulted on such matters as re-marriage, especially in the Dissenting families... in fact if we are to believe the Bible (where the Civil Laws were enacted from) then it is obvious that it was expected that a man would marry the wife of his dead brother, if the dead man had no children... over the years the intent has been either misunderstood, interpreted wrongly, or perverted...it is also to be noted that the rule only applied if there were no children from the first Marriage As a lot of people in Sheffield and surrounding areas were Dissenters, it is likely that they took their Bibles very seriously, especially the Old Testament... there are other examples of intermarriage between step sons and step wives written about with no negative judgement placed upon them either, probably for the same reason... the son would have perpetuated his father's line when there were no children from his father's Marriage...this leads me to believe that there was a broad interpretation across the spectrum in the interpretation of the Civil Law, when in fact it conflicted with Biblical Law... .I would also suspect that Ministers used their discretion in such matters... it is known that the Dissenters, were Baptized and buried at Chapel and only married in the Cof E, because it was the only 'lawfully' (civil law) recognized way to Marry. I do wonder how many of the people who married in St. Peter's were from Dissenting backgrounds... our family certainly was. Kindest regards, Josephine, Ontario, Canada... ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Treweek" <[email protected]> To: "list sheffield" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:09 AM Subject: [SHEFF] Bray Family > Hi Dianne. > > A man could NOT legally marry his step-mother. > > >From the rules of Kindred and Affinity this was not possible, although that is not to say it did not happen, especially if they were living away from their birthplaces. > > see: http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html > Kind Regards. > Angela. Eckington U.K. > _________________________________________________________________ > Get free emoticon packs and customisation from Windows Live. > http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >