Keith, "Marriage Law for Genealogists" is on Amazon.com and offered with both 2012 and 2016 versions. Same author, same title, different cover. Donna ________________________________ From: Keith Drage <drageke@ntlworld.com> To: Donna Casey <donnacasey@yahoo.com>; Norfolk FreeREG <freereg.norfolk@gmail.com>; "norfolk@rootsweb.com" <norfolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [NFK] Re :Illegitimate comments by vicars - thanks 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 >