On 14/08/2013 10:19, eve@varneys.org.uk wrote: > 84. >>>>> >>> Assuming the most common change of name upon marriage, this would occur >>> if a man marries his deceased brother's widow. >> >> Marriage to deceased brother's widow wasn't actually legal in 1921 (whereas >> marriage to deceased wife's sister had been since 1908). However, there >> was a lot of it about, and if the authorities didn't spot it, who cared? > If the first husband was a cousin, no problem. >>> >> EVE >>> >> > > Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians > Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society > Was it legal when the future Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon? For various reasons what was going through my mind was the duty to do so that appears to exist in Judaism, rather than the legality. -- Rod

On 14/08/2013 19:51, polygonum wrote: > On 14/08/2013 10:19, eve@varneys.org.uk wrote: >> 84. >>>>>> >>>> Assuming the most common change of name upon marriage, this would occur >>>> if a man marries his deceased brother's widow. >>> >>> Marriage to deceased brother's widow wasn't actually legal in 1921 >>> (whereas >>> marriage to deceased wife's sister had been since 1908). However, there >>> was a lot of it about, and if the authorities didn't spot it, who cared? >> If the first husband was a cousin, no problem. >>>> >>> EVE >>>> >>> >> >> Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians >> Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society >> > Was it legal when the future Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon? He certainly argued that it wasn't when it came to wanting an annulment. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote: > On 14/08/2013 10:19, eve@varneys.org.uk wrote: > > 84. > >>>>> > >>> Assuming the most common change of name upon marriage, this would occur > >>> if a man marries his deceased brother's widow. > >> > >> Marriage to deceased brother's widow wasn't actually legal in 1921 (whereas > >> marriage to deceased wife's sister had been since 1908). However, there > >> was a lot of it about, and if the authorities didn't spot it, who cared? > > If the first husband was a cousin, no problem. > > > Was it legal when the future Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon? > > For various reasons what was going through my mind was the duty to do so > that appears to exist in Judaism, rather than the legality. Going back to cousins, what the rank and file did I've no idea, but I believe that at the time of the complex dynasties of the Yorks and Lancastrians it was necessary to get a Papal Dispensation for cousins to marry. This came up in the recent series The White Queen and its companion documentary. However, there is an interesting article on the subject at <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Europe>. John. -- Please reply to john at yclept dot wanadoo dot co dot uk.

On 14/08/13 19:51, polygonum wrote: > Was it legal when the future Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon? Yes and no. At the time, Canon Law (canon 109, I believe) prevent a widow from marrying her husband's close blood relatives, and similarly for widowers. Clearly that applied to Henry, the brother of Catherine's first husband, Arthur. However, they sought and received papal dispensation from Pope Julius II, which made it legal. When Henry wanted an annulment, he argued that the papal bull granting dispensation to marry was invalid. The crux of the argument was that the marriage was not only contrary to Canon Law, to which the Pope could grant dispensation, but also contrary to the Leviticus (20.16) "And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless." Henry argued that this applied here, and that whilst the Pope had the power to waive Canon Law, he did not have the authority to waive Leviticus. The Pope, now Clement VII, argued that Leviticus was referring specifically to the wife of a living brother, which of course Arthur wasn't, and refused to grant annulment, holding the original bull to have been valid. To what extent the fact that Clement VII was being held prisoner by Charles V, the Emperor, and nephew of Catherine, is relevant is unclear. Richard