Home « Forum « Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Affinity

Argon

Hi, I have a question for those of you knowledgeable in civil and canonical law. In mid-19th century England, could a man marry the sister of his daughter in law? To complicate things, the son has perished and the daughter in law is widowed. Is her twin sister fair game for her father in law? If not, could a dispension be obtained from the Church of England?

Ross at Play

@Argon

Have a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibited_degree_of_kinship
From what I can see, there was only a brief period when the daughter-in-law was prohibited, and her sister would always have been fair game.

docholladay

@Argon

I think most of the laws on the subject are based around blood relationships. In your examples the sister of the daughter-in-law is not blood related to the man. Neither is the daughter-in-law of course, but while the son is alive, she would be off limits. After the son dies for whatever reason she is also eligible for marriage.

Of course I am not a lawyer, but that seems to be a common sense answer.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@docholladay

You note that a man can marry a former daughter-in-law provided his son has died.
That was mostly the case in the UK. For one period he could not marry her (according to wiki) "until after the death of both his son and the mother of his son".

That meant if he wanted to upgrade to a new wife (his dead son's former wife), he could not just divorce his wife ... he'd be obliged to kill her! ;)

Replies:   docholladay  Argon  sejintenej
docholladay

@Ross at Play

Or live in a culture which allows multiple wives. The blood relationship factors would still apply.

Jay Cantrell

Completely off topic (per usual) but I hope the question foretells a fresh Argon story soon and isn't just a source of conversation for future dinner parties at the Argon abode.

Replies:   Argon
Argon

@Jay Cantrell

It's Nº2 or Nº3 in the current line-up, but I need to get the facts straight. Cannot have the wedding bells tolling and somebody raising a stink about affinity. The Return of Thomas Grey is still planned as Nº1, but not before late March. I have 20 chapters ready and five more written as draft. Six more are planned until the poor guy can return, but don't bet the farm on it. It is going to be in the Carter Universe and set in the Sailing Navy.
And no, mid-19th century canonical law is rarely discussed at my dinner parties :o)

Argon

@Ross at Play

For one period he could not marry her (according to wiki) "until after the death of both his son and the mother of his son".

Thanks. That'll mean trouble for my MC. He has to pick one of the twin sisters. He's been a widower for two decades, and his only son and heir to the title perished in the Crimean War. According to your advice, the widow is also fair game. This may get interesting.
Incidentally, the working title of the story is "Double or Nothing" ;o)

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Argon

the widow is also fair game.

Yes, she is if his son is dead. Only exception was from about 1949 to 1986. It's all in wiki.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

It's all in wiki.

Yep. It's all in wiki (often wrong, but it's all there nevertheless). ;D

Replies:   REP  awnlee jawking
REP

@Crumbly Writer

Did you forget it is written in stone, or is that mud, so it can't be wrong. :)

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
awnlee jawking

@Crumbly Writer

Google seems to put wikipedia (spit!) at the top of many of its searches. I wonder how long it will be before one of the multinationals buys it and changes its business model to cash cow.

AJ

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin

@awnlee jawking

I wonder how long it will be before one of the multinationals buys it and changes its business model to cash cow.

If "it" is Wikipedia, it can't be bought. It is a non-profit charitable foundation. If "it" is Google, I am not going to hold my breath. It is exceptionally high priced, and few have $133 billion or so to buy it. That is the most recent 2016 valuation I could find googling it.

Replies:   REP  Ross at Play
REP

@richardshagrin

That is the most recent 2016 valuation I could find googling it.


The seller always overvalues what he is trying to sell. :)

Ross at Play

@richardshagrin

(Google) is exceptionally high priced, and few have $133 billion or so to buy it.

The starting figure is $567 billion, the current market capitalisation.
Anyone who wanted to make a takeover bid would probably have to add #133 billion as a 20-25% premium to have any chance of success.
So a round $700 billion is about what they'd need.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
sejintenej

@Ross at Play

You note that a man can marry a former daughter-in-law provided his son has died.

That was mostly the case in the UK. For one period he could not marry her (according to wiki) "until after the death of both his son and the mother of his son".


If you are still referring to the 1800s at that time divorce was rare because it required an Act of Parliament. That was at least hard and expensive to arrange but one enterprising Town Clerk worked it. In a huge Waterworks Act all about stopcocks, filter beds and other minutae he slipped in clause 64 "and the Town Clerk's marriage is hereby dissolved". Nobody was still awake when they got to clause 63 so it got through. This caused a problem when that (divorced) Town Clerk died; was his successor's marriage also divorced? I don't know the answer.

As an aside, if a seaman left port and was not heard of for a period of three years his wife could have herself declared a widow. Again, I don't know the situation if she was remarried when n° 1 returned later.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay
Updated:

@sejintenej


As an aside, if a seaman left port and was not heard of for a period of three years his wife could have herself declared a widow.


That is similar to the courts declaring someone who is missing for a period of years as being legally dead (without a body). At one time I think the standard was 7 years but I could be wrong on the time scale. There are other factors which can get a missing person declared legally dead as well, but I am not sure of the requirements.

edited to add: Just because the courts declare a person as being legally dead does not always mean that person is really dead.

Crumbly Writer

@REP

Did you forget it is written in stone, or is that mud, so it can't be wrong. :)

Mud eventually becomes stone, though the process of fossilization. (It just takes several hundred million years!)

Replies:   REP
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

The starting figure is $567 billion, the current market capitalisation.
Anyone who wanted to make a takeover bid would probably have to add #133 billion as a 20-25% premium to have any chance of success.
So a round $700 billion is about what they'd need.

It all depends on whether Wiki is covering its expenses or not. If they aren't, then it's just a matter of time until they eventually fold, at which point it's anyone's guess what happens to the website, trademark.

Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

It all depends on whether Wiki is covering its expenses or not. If they aren't, then it's just a matter of time until they eventually fold, at which point it's anyone's guess what happens to the website, trademark.


It depends in part on the details of how they are structured / chartered.

Any non-profit can wrap up operations and sell it's assets on the open market, but in most cases under US law, the proceeds would have to be donated to another non-profit.

In can be more complicated with an older non-profit because there used to be some options that don't exist any more.

For example, the corporation that owns Green Bay Packers football(American) team is chartered not under US federal law, but under Wisconsin state law as a non-profit stock corporation, an option that was removed from Wisconsin state law before WWII.

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

It all depends on whether Wiki is covering its expenses or not.

I was estimating the price tag for Google, not Wiki.

REP

@Crumbly Writer

Mud eventually becomes stone


That is why Trump prefers mud. He tries to wipe out what he said, so he can replace it with one of his alternative truths. :)

Back to Top