On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 20:01:43 +0100, polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote: >On 17/08/2013 19:40, Lesley Robertson wrote: >> "Graeme Wall" wrote in message news:PU_Ot.58036$hp7.33356@fx13.fr7... >> >> On 15/08/2013 01:31, Renia wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> The problem with Henry VIII's marriage to Katharine of Aragaon was that >>> she had previously been married to Henry's brother. >> >>> Which was the point of the comment. >> >> And the argument was an unconsummated marriage was nul and void. >> > It made it voidable not void otherwise e.g. many wartime marriages where the groom was only granted enough leave time to get married would have been invalid as would also be a deathbed marriage if the spouse did not recover. > >Though that cannot have made the act of marrying not legal. > Chicken v. Egg. A marriage is void from the time it occurs if there is a legal bar on either or both spouses marrying the other. Some of the reasons (e.g. age, relationship, already married) will themselves involve specific criminal offences but odd occasions due to facts not known at the time IMU would merely void the marriage without it being illegal (i.e. against criminal law).