To think very few women would marry their deceased sister’s widower?

[Albless]

My friend was always aware that his grandfather had been married twice, and that the first wife died. His grandmother was the second wife, and his DF was the only child of that second marriage. There were some children from the first marriage.

Some family history research has revealed that his grandfather’s first and second wives were sisters. Two years after the first wife died, the widower married his sister-in-law. The law allowing this to happen was only passed in 1907, about 20 years earlier.

My friend is not particularly interested in family history. But I was really taken aback when he said marrying a dead wife’s sister is probably more common now than it used to be!

I completely disagree - I think very few women would have any interest at all in marrying their brother-in-law if their sister died.

He thinks I’m wrong. I said I’d put it to MN.

AIBU?

It was common a long time ago...now...I don’t think it is.

I have that several times in my family tree. I don't think I know anyone who would do it but though.

I can imagine it being a lot more common in the past when mortality at a younger age was higher and people's social circles were smaller

Having said that I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with marrying the widow of a dead relative

I think loss can cause a sort of trauma bonding between people close to the deceased. I have read/heard about/personally know many instances of a spouse and a best friend getting together after a death. I don't know of any siblings, and I agree there's something about it that makes me squirm, but I can imagine it's similar in origin to the spouse/friend scenario.

It’s a tradition in Judaism- actually a religious law that if there are no children a widows brother in law must offer to marry her (she can refuse - traditionally by spitting in his shoe). It very rarely happens now tho. It’s called levirate marriage.

I think it used to be relatively common. My great grandmother married her husband's brother after her husband died (in fact, I only actually knew the Great Great Uncle).

I can see how this would happen, getting close over a mutual loss. People in dramatic/emotionally charged situations often get together.

It would be a bit icky for me though.

I have a similar occurrence in my family tree, early 1900's. There is no way that I could bring myself to fancy any of my dsises partners, current or ex. Just bleurgh!

I know of this happening with family friends around 40 years ago

I think Henry the 8ths first wife was his brothers widow.

I'd definitely find it distasteful to say the least of my sister died and amidst the grief her DH tried to put the moves on me.

I wonder what her family thought about it all.

I know of two women that did that. The first married her sisters husband and had 4 children with him and by all accounts were very happy together. Her sister and her husband didn't have kids as far as I know. This was 1930?

The other woman I know also married her late sisters husband after ww2 and raised her sisters 3 children with him. I always got the impression that he was not her first choice and from what she said she and he had a very cordial relationship but slept in separate rooms etc... Basically I think she did it as there was no other socially acceptable way for her to live with him and raise her nephews without marriage. She always seemed very sad

My great grandfather lost his wife but steadfastly refused to marry again and/or give up my gf and my great aunt to relatives to raise. He got a whole lot of abuse at the time for choosing to raise his children he was a truly wonderful man and raised a wonderful son who was my favourite person growing up.

I think I can beat that. Way back in the 1800's, one of my ancestors had a child with one sister, then a child with the other sister, then a child with the first sister again and a last child with the second sister again.

It used to be very common in almost all Indian cultures where there were children in the marriage, as it was assumed a maternal aunt made a more loving stepmum than anyone else. I am Indian and have aunts who were married off to their elder sisters’ husbands and who never stopped calling them the honorific for ‘brother in law’ - one thing they all had in common was how much they adored their ‘stepkids’.

not in britain it wasn't. was against the law of the land, because against the law of the church.
remember your tudor history; that's what henry VIII based his claim for annulment of first marriage, that god had not favoured him by a son, because he had gone against god's law b marrying his brother's wife.
his brother arthur died v young, about 15, and katherine aragon had been bethrothed to him. it all hung on whether they had actually consumated the marriage. nobody thought so, before henry decided this was a way out. the pope, who was being besiged by katherine's nephew at the time, disagreed. so henry did it himself. declared himself head of the church in england, and ruled that the first marriage was invalid. ...

I imagine it was very common in the 'olden days', certainly more common than it is now. Women had very few opportunities and were probably expected to step into their sister's shoes, especially if there were children involved.
I'm actually more surprised that it was ever illegal, you aren't related to your sister's husband in any way that prohibits a sexual relationship.

This happened in my family tree. I wonder if it was to do with having someone to look after the children from the first marriage and maybe living with an unmarried women would be frowned on? I think it would much less common now and people would judge harshly.

@CayrolBaaaskin

It’s a tradition in Judaism- actually a religious law that if there are no children a widows brother in law must offer to marry her (she can refuse - traditionally by spitting in his shoe). It very rarely happens now tho. It’s called levirate marriage.

Wouldn't a simple "thanks, but no thanks" do? Spitting in the shoe seems a bit over the top.

I went to school with a boy whose mum died of cancer when he and his brother were young and his dad went on to marry his mum’s sister.

I always thought it was strange.

She then died and I was hoping there were no more sisters 😬

I can see it being more common in the past, when women had fewer options, social circles were smaller, and it might have been considered inappropriate for a single woman to live under same roof as a widower - on the basis that the sister might have moved in to help with any children.

What I found so bizarre was that he specifically said, and then repeated, that it would be more common now!

My grandma married her husbands brother when her husband died - I think it was common back in the day!

When my uncle died, his widow went on to marry his twin brother. (Also my uncle, in case it isn’t clear!) I wouldn’t say it was common, but not unheard of. (Didn’t Henry VIII marry his brother’s wife when he died?)

Happened in my family in the 1980s so not that long ago

I think it may have been done out of a duty of care rather than necessarily because they ‘fancied ‘ one another. Single women had a tough(er) time of it.
But while it wouldn’t be for me ( really, same MIL, twice?) I wouldn’t judge anyone who did.

My Dad used to do a bit of genealogy and this was much more common in the olden days.. I think if one brother died leaving a widow, another brother would see it as an honourable thing to do to marry his brother's widow.

@CayrolBaaaskin

It’s a tradition in Judaism- actually a religious law that if there are no children a widows brother in law must offer to marry her (she can refuse - traditionally by spitting in his shoe). It very rarely happens now tho. It’s called levirate marriage.

Similar law in Hinduism but it was usually because the dowry and the woman would legally have to be returned to her maternal family otherwise and many families couldn’t afford that. We also had traditions whereby women in matriarchial societies would marry a group of brothers.