I know about the rules re dead wife's sister etc - but if the 2 Murphys who died were brother & sister, that would make the surviving spouses who then married each other in-laws rather than a direct blood relation. Would something like the same law apply? Mary -----Original Message----- From: bush.lyme <bush.lyme@ntlworld.com> To: sog-uk <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:45 Subject: [SOG-UK] consanguinity Mary ccording to Rebecca Probert in her book "Marriage Law for Genealogists", rom 31 August 1835 a marriage in England or Wales between a man and his eceased wife's sister would have been void, as would a marriage between a oman and her deceased husband's brother. The former prohibition was removed n 1907, but the latter not until 1921. reland had its own laws, which may or may not have been similar. However, t does seem likely that this problem was at the root of the matter. y apologies to Professor Probert if I have misquoted or misunderstood her. Regards George Bush ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message

Possibly. I'm afraid it is one of those areas where logic seems to have played very little part in formulating the laws. There is no blood relationship between a man and his dead wife's sister, so it is difficult to understand why such marriages were void anyway. It is quite likely that the prohibition did include in-laws and could easily have been enforced by an over zealous cleric although various cases quoted by Professor Probert suggest that even where there was considerable doubt about the validity of a proposed marriage, a priest was more likely than not to conduct the marriage ceremony. In the absence of reliable evidence one way or the other I think you are going to be stuck with one of the conundrums that for me at least make family history so fascinating. George