The cleric was however wrong, at least for the period under discussion. In England and Wales, between 1660 (the restoration) and 1835, such a marriage was only void if challenged in the courts during the lifetime of the participants and ruled to be so. The assumption is that if that had occurred, the cleric would have mentioned it. As such the child was not a bastard. If the marriage had occurred after 1835 (and before 1907), it would have been void, i.e. as if it had never occurred. This law change also rendered any such marriage that had not been previously challenged made before 1835. The 1907 change removed the restriction on marrying deceased wife's sister, and also made valid any such prior marriages. I recommend Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists. regards Keith Drage Swindon UK On 26-May-16 2:25 PM, Norfolk FreeREG via wrote: > Hi Linda, > > I have just come across one that might interest you. > > Broxted in Essex > 28 Mar 1773 Samuel son of John and Sarah FRANKLIN > Sarah his wife so called (having privily married and contrary to > express statute * his late wifes sister in blood); this child in the > eye of the law is a bastard and the marriage null and void > > Julie > > On 15 May 2016 at 18:25, Linda Wright via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> Well you lovely people you certainly came up trumps. Thank you all so much who sent me examples some off list. I knew that you wouldn’t let me down! >> >> They were certainly different times. >> >> >> Best wishes >> >> Linda >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Keith, Do you happen to know if the new version (2016) has any distinct advantages/information over the 2012 version of this publication.It looks as if it might be a very handy resource.Donna TILLINGHAST CaseyMichigan, USA Duty first, self second.Lilibet From: Keith Drage via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> To: Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; norfolk@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks The cleric was however wrong, at least for the period under discussion. In England and Wales, between 1660 (the restoration) and 1835, such a marriage was only void if challenged in the courts during the lifetime of the participants and ruled to be so. The assumption is that if that had occurred, the cleric would have mentioned it. As such the child was not a bastard. If the marriage had occurred after 1835 (and before 1907), it would have been void, i.e. as if it had never occurred. This law change also rendered any such marriage that had not been previously challenged made before 1835. The 1907 change removed the restriction on marrying deceased wife's sister, and also made valid any such prior marriages. I recommend Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists. regards Keith Drage Swindon UK On 26-May-16 2:25 PM, Norfolk FreeREG via wrote: > Hi Linda, > > I have just come across one that might interest you. > > Broxted in Essex > 28 Mar 1773 Samuel son of John and Sarah FRANKLIN > Sarah his wife so called (having privily married and contrary to > express statute * his late wifes sister in blood); this child in the > eye of the law is a bastard and the marriage null and void > > Julie > > On 15 May 2016 at 18:25, Linda Wright via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> Well you lovely people you certainly came up trumps. Thank you all so much who sent me examples some off list. I knew that you wouldn’t let me down! >> >> They were certainly different times. >> >> >> Best wishes >> >> Linda >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Keith, Do you happen to know if the new version (2016) has any distinct advantages/information over the 2012 version of this publication. It looks as if it might be a very handy resource. Donna TILLINGHAST Casey Michigan, USA Duty first, self second. Lilibet ________________________________ From: Keith Drage via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> To: Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; norfolk@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks The cleric was however wrong, at least for the period under discussion. In England and Wales, between 1660 (the restoration) and 1835, such a marriage was only void if challenged in the courts during the lifetime of the participants and ruled to be so. The assumption is that if that had occurred, the cleric would have mentioned it. As such the child was not a bastard. If the marriage had occurred after 1835 (and before 1907), it would have been void, i.e. as if it had never occurred. This law change also rendered any such marriage that had not been previously challenged made before 1835. The 1907 change removed the restriction on marrying deceased wife's sister, and also made valid any such prior marriages. I recommend Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists. regards Keith Drage Swindon UK On 26-May-16 2:25 PM, Norfolk FreeREG via wrote: > Hi Linda, > > I have just come across one that might interest you. > > Broxted in Essex > 28 Mar 1773 Samuel son of John and Sarah FRANKLIN > Sarah his wife so called (having privily married and contrary to > express statute * his late wifes sister in blood); this child in the > eye of the law is a bastard and the marriage null and void > > Julie > > On 15 May 2016 at 18:25, Linda Wright via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> Well you lovely people you certainly came up trumps. Thank you all so much who sent me examples some off list. I knew that you wouldn’t let me down! >> >> They were certainly different times. >> >> >> Best wishes >> >> Linda >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The copy I have is dated "First published in 2012" and I cannot see a later version referenced anywhere. As a university academician she has published a number of books on this subject and related issues. Are you perhaps referring to "Divorced, Bigamist, Bereaved?" which is the later book addressed to a family history readership, but not covering the same subject matter. I have not got this one, but if the thoroughly readable style persists then it is probably worth also reading. Her full list of publications can be accessed from here: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/people/probert regards Keith On 26-May-16 4:05 PM, Donna Casey wrote: > Keith, Do you happen to know if the new version (2016) has any distinct advantages/information over the 2012 version of this publication. > It looks as if it might be a very handy resource. > Donna TILLINGHAST Casey > Michigan, USA > > Duty first, self second. > Lilibet > > > > ________________________________ > From: Keith Drage via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > To: Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; norfolk@rootsweb.com > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:00 AM > Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks > > > The cleric was however wrong, at least for the period under discussion. > > In England and Wales, between 1660 (the restoration) and 1835, such a > marriage was only void if challenged in the courts during the lifetime > of the participants and ruled to be so. > > The assumption is that if that had occurred, the cleric would have > mentioned it. > > As such the child was not a bastard. > > If the marriage had occurred after 1835 (and before 1907), it would have > been void, i.e. as if it had never occurred. This law change also > rendered any such marriage that had not been previously challenged made > before 1835. > > The 1907 change removed the restriction on marrying deceased wife's > sister, and also made valid any such prior marriages. > > I recommend Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists. > > regards > > Keith Drage > Swindon UK > > > On 26-May-16 2:25 PM, Norfolk FreeREG via wrote: >> Hi Linda, >> >> I have just come across one that might interest you. >> >> Broxted in Essex >> 28 Mar 1773 Samuel son of John and Sarah FRANKLIN >> Sarah his wife so called (having privily married and contrary to >> express statute * his late wifes sister in blood); this child in the >> eye of the law is a bastard and the marriage null and void >> >> Julie >> >> On 15 May 2016 at 18:25, Linda Wright via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> Well you lovely people you certainly came up trumps. Thank you all so much who sent me examples some off list. I knew that you wouldn’t let me down! >>> >>> They were certainly different times. >>> >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Linda >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >