PDA

View Full Version : KY: who you can't marry, 1860.



Linda Trent
06-12-2007, 02:56 PM
Okay, yesterday Hank and I were at the University of Kentucky researching for the upcoming trial event and I chanced to run across the following from Kentucky Officers' Guide... with forms," published in 1860, and I found it to be quite interesting.


A woman shall not marry her father, grandfather, brother, son, or grandson; nor the husband of her mother, grandmother, daughter or grand-daughter; nor the son, grandson, father, or grandfather of her husband; nor the son, or grandson of her brother or sister; nor the brother of her father or mother. Where relationship is founded on marriage, the prohibition shall continue, notwithstanding the dissolution of the marriage by death or divorce.

Okay, I can understand the blood thing, but the by marriage?


"nor the son, grandson, father, or grandfather of her husband"


And it can't be dissolved even by death or divorce. Does anyone get this prohibition?

Thanks,

Linda.

Phil
06-12-2007, 04:21 PM
I think it means essentially that a woman can't divorce her husband to marry his son, or something to that effect.

Spinster
06-20-2007, 11:50 PM
And it can't be dissolved even by death or divorce. Does anyone get this prohibition?



An affront to Common Decency---essentially, these sorts of relationships would be disruptive to the fabric of the society. Once the door is open to serial marital relationships within a family unit, the family unit is more subject to disruption---and the society suffers.

WestTN_reb
06-21-2007, 01:56 AM
Sounds like something you'd see on Springer.

There is an old saying that laws or rules usually have a past behind them. I mean, some states allow 3rd cousin marriages, If I'm not terribly mistaken. :shock: Now, that could be disruptive.

jthlmnn
06-21-2007, 12:03 PM
Over time, societal customs regarding marriage have changed. What was once allowable, even expected, becomes prohibited. For example, in nomadic societies of Old Testament times, a man was expected to marry his brother's widow. (Polygamy was allowed.) This provided protection and sustenance for her and, more importantly, her male children. It also kept any property within a given family.

Time/location/societal values change. The English/Anglican Reformation began with Henry VIII having to obtain a dispensation to marry his brother's widow. (Claim was that the marriage was never consumated.) Later, much later, he wants the marriage annuled, claiming he should not have been allowed to marry his brother's widow.

In a slightly different vein, while researching my family's genealogy, I have found several 19th century instances where siblings of one family would marry siblings of another family. There was commonly one year's separation between the weddings. ("I have often heard it said, by me father and me mother, that goin' to a weddin' is the makin's of another." Old Maid in the Garret-Irish Folk Song)

Aside from any notions of decency, as aptly described above, other societal values come into play, as well as the legal ramifications regarding inheritance of property.

By the way, does anyone else remember the song "I'm My Own Grandpa"?
My parents had a recording of it (78 rpm) when I was a wee lad.

http://gean.wwco.com/grandpa/

bob 125th nysvi
06-21-2007, 12:50 PM
is they had too many Law & Order: Special Victims Unit incidents.

For example (and remember Victorians were big on image and marriages couldn't be hidden), momma passes away and the daughter marries her step-dad.

Now that would be some really juicy gossip at the Sunday after church social wouldn't it?

It would not unusual or unseemly for a widower to marry a friend of his daughter, may-december romances were quite common. So it wasn't an age thing.

And there was (I don't remember how distant) some blood/marital relation between Robert and Mary Lee (the Custis' and Lee's had been intermarrying since before the revolution). So keeping it in the family wasn't out of the question either.

So it seems they were more worried about appearances than DNA issues.

But as also previously pointed out marriage customs have changed quite a bit over the centuries, a girl we would consider a child that had to be protected would be married off and have kids before she reached the modern age of conset in the not too distant past. Polygamy was allowed and women were married off without their consent.

dclarry
06-21-2007, 01:31 PM
In a slightly different vein, while researching my family's genealogy, I have found several 19th century instances where siblings of one family would marry siblings of another family. There was commonly one year's separation between the weddings. ("I have often heard it said, by me father and me mother, that goin' to a weddin' is the makin's of another." Old Maid in the Garret-Irish Folk Song)



My mother's brother married my father's sister just after WWII. I have a set of cousins who all have the same four grandparents (we call our little subset of cousins 'double first cousins').

This was in Upstate New York in the 1940's, where one would assume people might venture more than a few miles from home to find a mate. But I do still have a sister up there who never leaves the county, let alone the state ...

Linda Trent
06-21-2007, 05:50 PM
I just completed my paternal family history, thoroughly documented 150 page book. Here are some of the things I found:

My 2nd cousin four times removed b. abt. 1812, in Ohio married a Anna Marie Kreiger (apparently married name), and when she died he married her daughter (his step-daughter also named Anna Marie Kreiger). He had children by both women (imagine doing the genealogy trying to figure out relationships there). :rolleyes:

In Germany in the latter 18th century I have first cousins marrying, which cuts down the amount of work I have to do, since I can accomplish twice the amount of work doing one line. :D

I have many examples, (and ironically this is not forbidden in Kentucky), of a sister marrying her deceased sister's husband, and of course siblings of one family marrying siblings of another.

I guess I just have a problem seeing why a woman should not marry her husband's son (if old enough) when her first husband passes away, since there's no blood relationship there.

Of course my favorite one is Civil War related. My great grandfather married in 1868 to Julia Morgan (first wife - I'm from the second), who was the sister of Alcinda Morgan, who was the wife of my great great grandfather. That makes my cousin Earl my half-first cousin once removed and half second cousin twice removed. :shock:

BTW, all of the above was in Ohio.

Linda.

jthlmnn
06-21-2007, 08:52 PM
I guess I just have a problem seeing why a woman should not marry her husband's son (if old enough) when her first husband passes away, since there's no blood relationship there.
Linda.

When studying Canon Law regarding marriage (1983 Code), I was taught that the Catholic Church's perspective is that the familial relationships caused by marriage (legal relationship) are considered to be the same as those caused by blood ties (natural relationships). Therefore, the taboo regarding incest would apply equally. This is separate from civil law, but may help you to understand the prohibitions, both social and legal.

(The Code of Canon Law: A text and commentary, 1985, Canon Law Society of America, Canon 1091 1-4 & commentary)

WestTN_reb
06-21-2007, 09:26 PM
In a slightly different vein, while researching my family's genealogy, I have found several 19th century instances where siblings of one family would marry siblings of another family.
Can't say much on that one. My grandfather's first cousin married my grandmother's sister. This was in the 1920's.

Spinster
06-21-2007, 10:12 PM
I have many examples, (and ironically this is not forbidden in Kentucky), of a sister marrying her deceased sister's husband, .

Well of course not---such a marriage was convenient, provided quickly and properly for the motherless children, in some cases was likely at the behest of the late wife. What better way to insure the welfare of your children than to have your sister raise them?