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?

I remember reading about a man whose wife died in an accident who had then married her sister - not that long ago, a few years.

I don’t think it’s that odd. If there are kids then there’s a good chance the surviving sibling will be around a lot, being supportive. They’d both be suffering the loss. And it’s definitely not unheard of for people to have affair’s with their spouse’ s sibling.

In terms of marriage and prohibited relations there are blood relationships and relationships by affinity. So, a sister-in-law falls into the latter category. I suppose it’s based on the idea that marriage confers that sibling relationship across the two families

You have me interested now! I just looked up the Church of England laws- and SIL/BIL are indeed forbidden (from 1590- after Henry VIII married Catherine- until the late 20th C). I can only imagine that the marriages to widowed BILs weren't CoFE marriages, or that there was an exemption if your brother or sister had died?
Church of England laws: www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html#Toc115570255

It wasn't uncommon for several reasons, one of which is that a widow might be left without financial support. If the couple had lived in tied accommodation, she would be homeless too. In my own culture it is seen as a brother's responsibility to support his brother's widow and children. To take her into his home as a wife gives her status and precludes gossip. I can't see what's squirmy about it.

And I really should read the whole link myself, the answer is there!

The 1907 Marriage Act removed no. 17 from the forbidden list (Wife's sister and Husband's brother), provided the first spouse in each case was deceased. Further changes followed in 1921, 1931 and 1949

Two of the Jackson 5 married, and had children with, the same man.

*woman, obviously.

It was more common years ago- it also happened on my family in 1923.

I remember being at my mums friends house about 10 years ago and her wider circle were there, including two sisters and one the sisters husband. My mum being nosey mentioned to her friend that the sister and the husband seemed to get on very well which was nice. She then mentioned that actually they used to be married but now he’s married to and had kids with her sister. So it definitely is still a thing

My second cousin married her sisters widowed husband in February. I think it is odd but my mother (in her 80s) assures me this was the norm back in the day.

At one point in Scotland it was legal for a man to marry his late wife's sister, but illegal for a woman to marry her late husband's brother. I'm totally convinced it was to do with the ability for a man to have help to bring up his children.

The Catholic church didn't allow it at all until the early 1900s and even after that they really didn't encourage it. I got the impression from the books the Bishop only allowed it with my Gr-Grandparents because my Gr-Gran was about 6 months pregnant

Although they are all still alive so actually maybe a bit different!!

Happened in my family. My grandma is one of four girls. Her eldest sister married a chap, had 6 kids, then died. He then married the next sister (not my grandma) and they had 3 more kids - who are both half-siblings and cousins of the older lot.

But can a man marry his widow’s sister?

I can see why the temptation is there though. My friend looked just like her sister and shared many of her mannerisms. Her sister very sadly died and her husband made many overtures to my friend. It was probably driven by a lot of things - familiarity, sure knowledge that she already loved their children, and what he found attractive in his deceased wife he almost certainly found attractive in her sister. She also found great comfort in being able to talk freely about her much loved sister and to find some solace in being involved in their family unit. She was very close to him for a while but in the end it got too much and she had to disentangle herself. I can easily see how it could happen though.

I have a friend whose father died and her mother subsequently married his brother. I probably did this face when she told me. It's comparatively recently too, she's only young.

Isn’t Joe Biden’s son dating his late brother’s widow?

Royalty were well into that back in the day

Henry VIII marries his brothers widow...

The point is that Henry VIII didn’t do it. Depending on how you look at it either Arthur wasn’t really married to Catherine because the marriage wasn’t consummated or Henry wasn’t really married to Catherine because she was his sister.

Catherine’s side said one thing and Henry’s side said another but literally nobody said that she’d been married to both Arthur and Henry.

Likewise he couldn’t be have been married to both Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn; either his marriage to Catherine was null and void, or his marriage to Anne was bigamous. You can derail an entire pub quiz this way if you happen to be the type of person who finds fights more fun than pub quizzes.

Married*

@AngeloMysterioso

Isn’t Joe Biden’s son dating his late brother’s widow?

He was. He's now married to someone else.

My brothers in law would sooner be fed to hungry wolves than be married to me

I'd have thought it would have been more common in the past, as there would have been less men due to them dying in wars etc so perhaps women were less fussy as life was more patriarchal then.

It used to be common, but then again there were very different societal drivers for marriage.

My great-grandfather remarried after widowhood, purely to have someone to bring the children up. I think it was fairly common. A man would be expected to remarry in reasonably short order if there were children in the picture, and a maiden aunt would be an ideal candidate to raise them.

It's fairly well known that all families have some history of inbreeding, which is why your ancestors don't multiply exponentially through the generations. I wouldn't have expected it much by the 20th century but I wouldn't be surprised by it either.