Marriage laws 16th century England

Status
Not open for further replies.

IreneB

Hi,
I'm new, and I know this is a pretty obscure question, but you never know when someone may have information right at their fingertips.

In my novel in late sixteenth century England, a brother and sister both die. To keep the children together, I want the wife of the brother and the husband of the sister to marry.

However, I know the laws of consanguinity for the Church of England at that time were fairly complex. I suspect I may have to go looking though actual documents of the period, but is this kosher? If it weren't, could they get a permission from the Queen to marry?

Thanks,
IreneB.
 

pdr

Banned
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
832
Location
Home - but for how long?
Tricky!

As I understand it the actual law was not repealed until the mid 1900s, 1950?

In fact the law came directly from the Bible and I believe such a marriage was held to be 'Wrong' by most versions of Christianity.

The Queen could not alter this by giving special permission. Though if the country was still Catholic the couple could have appealed to the Pope.
 

IreneB

Role of the Queen

As a lapsed Catholic, I think that some of the laws still hold for Catholics, but cradle Catholics never learn that much about their religious beliefs!

That's why I was thinking of the Queen being able to offset the laws because in the Church of England, she's the equivalent of the Pope as the head of the Church, pdr. It's interesting, isn't it, how long those laws have lasted?....and now they've found marrying your cousin doesn't have any genetic problems attached to it!


Thanks, IreneB
 

SJAB

Being edited for submission
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
157
Reaction score
17
Location
UK
Website
www.susanjboulton.com
It was the fact that Henry VIII was granted leave by the pope to marry his brother's widow that was the legal heart of his seeking to divorce Katherine and marry Anne, the mother of Elizabeth I. (nothing to do with the fact he was tired of Katherine and Anne was young, vital etc ;) ) Henry believed he had sinned against the laws of God and had not been given a son.

Appealing to the Queen to offset this law, whose very existence was a result of her father divorcing his first wife on the grounds of this law, would be not only dangerous, but highest folly. The law was, I believe, in force until fairly recently.
 

SJAB

Being edited for submission
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
157
Reaction score
17
Location
UK
Website
www.susanjboulton.com
Evaine said:
As I understand it, General Synod, the 'Parliament' of the Church of England, can change policy, but the Queen is a figurehead only and has no power to change anything the Church does.

Today yes, The Synod was not formed until 1970, before then it was the church assembly, which was formed in 1919. Before that I am not sure, but during Elizabeth I time a secure Church of England was established. Its doctrines were laid down in the 39 Articles of 1563, a compromise between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. By the Act of Supremacy (1559) ecclesiastical jurisdiction was restored to the crown to be exercised by a court of high commission. So the Queen at that time had a lot to do with it.
 

IreneB

Queen Elizabeth's reactions

You raise some good points, SJAB, on what would Elizabeth's reaction likely be.

The whole mess of her beginnings must have scarred her in many ways. I'm not so sure she would have been too sensitive about the consanguinity laws. Philip of Spain wanted to marry her after Mary Tudor died, and Elizabeth said no, probably more for reasons of statescraft than familial yuckiness.

And, her mother got beheaded by her father, but that didn't stop Elizabeth from using that same tool of leadership! I always read Elizabeth as pragmatic with a main goal of maintaining the rights of Monarchs to lead their own realms, but again, that's what's fun about writing Historical Fiction. You can make history bow to your own motivations (within limitations).

Thanks for making me rethink Elizabeth's motivations with regard to this.
IreneB
 

pdr

Banned
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
832
Location
Home - but for how long?
Interesting!

I understood that the law was: 'Thou shalt not marry thy brother's wife.' From Exodus I believe and is it still the rule in the Catholic church?

I do remember the famous case in the UK that finally brought Parliament to repeal it.

No, Elizabeth 1 wouldn't shake the 1536 Reformation act as it made her legitimate.
I think for your story you might have family intervening to help out. The family, if with enough money and/or work, did often look after the widows and orphans. Sometimes not kindly, others in a good hearted fashion.
 

Ol' Fashioned Girl

Hand? What hand?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
15,640
Reaction score
6,849
Location
Last Star on the Right
Website
www.jenniferdahl.com
Even the Pope had his own reasons for not wanting to grant Henry VIII's request to set aside Kathrine so he could marry Anne... and they had nothing to do with church doctrine. Kathrine's nephew was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, and if the Pope granted Henry's request, he would make an enemy of Charles - not good.

Whatever Elizabeth I does in regard to your couple, it would most likely be because there was some advantage politically for her in the doing.
 

IreneB

Balance between church and state

Part of the problem is puzzling out what it means to have church and state so intertwined and which need is going to be met first. I think those of us with Western European/Enlightenment roots automatically assume there's a big difference between the two entities, but it's harder to puzzle out what people actually thought before that split occurred.

IreneB
 

Tsu Dho Nimh

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
1,534
Reaction score
248
Location
West Enchilada, NM
IreneB said:
In my novel in late sixteenth century England, a brother and sister both die. To keep the children together, I want the wife of the brother and the husband of the sister to marry.

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/misc/kindred.html

From 1662 ... it looks like they can marry. A sibling's wife/husband is not on the list for 1662. It was strongly discouraged, but possible. And it was grounds for dissolution if either party wanted.

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~awoodley/regency/marry.html
The Marriage Act of 1835 banned them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.