Is there a name, and therefore a category, for a marriage between a person and the sibling of their former spouse? [closed]

Question

I have a couple of cases now where a wife has died, and their widower marries her sister (or the husband died and the widow marries his brother.) Just wondering how common this is, and if there is a category for these sorts of cases? It's not really consanguineous, is it?

Comments

It was not rare in Australia in the 19th century. I have a few cases among my ancestors. I'm not aware of any permission needed to do it.

I also have a marriage between a man and his niece in my family. There should be an ick category for that one.

---

Children by each spouse are called "three quarter siblings". Genetically, they are halfway between half and full siblings (assuming the sibling spouses themselves were just common full siblings, and not identical twins).

---

In the past, some cultures required the brother of a man who died to marry the widow.  This prevented the family from becoming a drain on the tribes.  I don't know if any current
situations still exist.

---

In small communities (for example on the American frontier), it was probably often a practical necessity, and a rather inevitable outcome in the circumstances.  As Deborah Pate noted, the second wife might already have been helping with the children and management of the household.  (Not to mention consoling the bereaved widower...)

---

I have many cases in my ancestors in Brittany, that was indeed if not a duty, at least a frequent thing, both ways.

The most recent one is my maternal great-grandfather Désiré-Marie Lhostis who married the elder sister of his wife after her death at 23. This was really a headache for us children to understand how the cousins fit in the family.

The other way round, a brother of my paternal great-grandfather, Pierre-Marie Vatant, married the widow of his brother, mother of nine. Just the beginning of a long story, see the profile, he married four times ...

And several more. A very frequent and similar pattern in this same rural society was the marriage of two brothers with two sisters. That was the case of my paternal grand-parents (who were neighbours and 4th/5th cousins, and many more above them). Sometimes the double marriage was celebrated the same day.

---

Four of the Lumière siblings marrie Winckler siblings.

And recently I got two brothers who married two sisters, one of the husbands and one of the wives died and the survivors married each other (can't remember who it was, must look it up).

Answer 1

Hi Wendy

The category is "Married successive siblings".

Clare

Comments

Who would have thought?!

---

Thanks Clare! I'm not a great fan of categories, but I have quite a few candidates in my ancestors for that one. And also for the similar one Double In Law Marriages

---

And for information, that category was created five years ago, and not by someone from the categorization project.

As has been said elsewhere, while in some places if was forbidden, in others it was not only allowed but encouraged.

Answer 2

I don't know if there's a name or a category, but just yesterday I came across one such case in Sweden 1844, where Eric Johan Löf married the younger sister of his deceased wife. (No profile for the second wife yet).

I agree that it won't be consanguinity between groom and bride - but nevertheless he had to get special "royal" permission. (I don't think it actually involved the king, just his delegated power).

Comments

Henry VIII Tudor married the widow of his deceased brother.  He also needed "permission" from t he Pope in order to do so.

Answer 3

I don't know about other countries but it was prohibited in the UK until 1907, when the 'Deceased Wife's Sister Marriage Act' made it legal. I think that tells you whether there's a good name for it.  

Previously, marriage ties were thought to make relationships (one flesh and all that), so consanguinity laws would apply. But there was a high demand for men (specifically) to be able to marry their wife's sister. Sisters would often get called in to help with the children in the early days of widowhood, and having childcare from someone who would probably care about the children was obviously desirable.

Comments

"He shall prick that annual blister marriage with deceased wife's sister"

 (W S Gilbert, Iolanthe 1882).

  In England, it was for centuries a voidable marriage; that is it was against canon law.If anyone objected, at any time up to death, then the marriage would be made null and void.If voided, any children deemed illegitimate, the 'wife' and children would have no rights of inheritance. However, if no-one  formally objected the marriage was legal. 

After 1835 it was made  illegal in civil law and remained so until the 1907 act. (Scottish law was different and it was illegal from the 16th C)

It was a controversial subject and led to numerous letters to the Times, and discussions in parliament for the next 70 years.

https://austenauthors.net/a-voidable-marriage-in-history-marrying-the-sister-of-ones-late-wife-or-the-brother-of-ones-late-husband/

---

There's an interesting argument by Jonathan Schulz et al. that the prohibitions the Catholic church placed against a broad range of "consanguineous" marriages had the effect of breaking up "kin-based institutions" (clan structures) and promoting, in the long run, individualism, independence and inclination toward trust and cooperation with strangers (not just kin).

The Church, intensive kinship, and global psychological variation.

---

Eva, my guess would be that, to the extent that the church deliberately weakened clan structures, it was not in order to promote individualism, but to replace their authority with its own.

---

P.S.  I only read the introduction, but it is interesting.  A new perspective on all of us:  We are WEIRD!  (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic)

---

This seems so commonplace in my ancestry, that I was surprised to learn that it was formerly illegal in the UK. I guess that any practice that was once frowned upon -- or that was formerly accepted but is now considered unacceptable -- is possibly a worthwhile topic for a category. And these practices definitely deserve to have informational pages (in free-space)!

---

I believe it was the reason why Henry VIII tried to get his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled. She had formerly been betrothed to his brother Arthur, but as he died before the wedding, Henry sought a dispensation and got it from the Pope to marry her. Some years later he wanted to divorce her for the same reason, but the request was procrastinated and finally denied. The rest is history, as they say; Henry threw out the Pope's men, declared the marriage to Catherine void, and married Anne Boleyn.

---

As far as I remember, Schulz and his co-authors very carefully avoid speculation about the intentions of the church; they just describe the plethora of forbidden relationships and correlate it to some present-day psycho-social measures. They don't say "clan structures", either.

But, whether intentional or not, the "forced out-marrying" did have longterm effects, promoting "modernity".

---

Right, Eva.  They say "kin-based institutions."  I didn't intentionally change the meaning, and am not sure what distinction you're making, except possibly to point out that my wording was a little sloppy.

I did notice that the authors did not speculate on the church's intention (thus I spoke of "my guess").  They did, however, use the words "systematically undermined," which to me does imply that there was some intent involved.

---

Yes, I find it easier to think of clan structures than kin-based institutions and I also find it easier to impute intentions to the church than to be as academically cautious as the authors.

My first thought was economical intentions. The popularized version I first saw was less shy about it than the original paper and explained that less kin involution resulted in more property transfer to the church. But I think we are getting off topic.

---

Interesting that the church had rules against it, when it's given as a requirement of Moses and mentioned in the New Testament (Matthew 22:24).

Answer 4

It was not a rare occurrence in the history of the united states of america either .... I have a few case histories in my own family lines

When you look at the profiles of the Mormons, for instance, quite often you will see a man who numbers among his wives two sisters or two females who are cousins to each other 

Such marriages with children by each can and will cause a pedigree collapse, think that's what it is called, since the DNA is so similar (two siblings can share a lot of DNA) with an occasional surprise when one of the two siblings turns out not to be a full sibling but a half sibling due to some error in judgment of the prior generation ... 

Comments

Pedigree collapse is when one ancestor occupies two or more spots in a person's pedigree.  That would not be a result of one person having married two related people, whether successively or simultaneously in a polygamous situation.

Answer 5

Interesting, yes. In need of a category? Why? I don't think a category would be of any use.

Comments

And yet there is one!

---

It was created a long time ago. I don't think it's useful either, but it's there. At least it has a neutral name.

---

Don't think either such categories are useful. There are so many possible configurations in marriages, and indeed, each new one can open a  vocabulary can of worms. And think that some day, when WikiTree gets multilingual, someone will have to translate all those names into so many languages. For the record, Wikipedia has versions in 300 languages.

---

I find it useful, using the "limit to watchlist" function, I can get a list of all instances it has happened on my watchlist, which is interesting to understand prevalence.

It could also be useful for people interested in DNA implications.

---

Clare, would you please explain exactly how you do that?

---

Yes, on the Category page, there is a menu along the top, which includes "limit to my watchlist". I think it's great for locations, schools, cemeteries and careers, too.

---

Thanks, Clare!

---

 - and thanks Clare - -

It is  a "toggle" switch = Limit to Watchlist   or     

Show All | How to Categorize | Category Search | WikiTree+ Search/Navigate

cheers

Answer 6

In the 19th century and earlier it happens in Germany often. I have a lot of ancestors who married a sibbling of their deceased spouse.

One of them married three sisters one after another.

Or one of each parent of a couple died and the two surviving married each other.

Comments

There is a parable in the Bible very similar to that!

Answer 7

Interesting, not something that was permitted by the Church here (modern-day Québec),

I have seen marriages where there needed to be dispensation from the bishop for such things as one of the spouses being godparent of the other's child by prior marriage, was deemed to be ''spiritual affinity'' connection.  There was no prior familial link of any sort in these.  But definitely marrying the sibling of deceased spouse was not permitted.

Comments

Funny you should mention that, Danielle. I'm currently cataloging all the Daignault, Faubert, Gendron, Primeau and Rufiange (dit Laviolette, dit Grand'Maitre) from the south shore of Montreal and I already came across 2 cases where the man married is sister-in-law after the passing of his wife.

---

hi Andréa, which one was it?  Bet if you look at the marriage records there will be a whole section on dispensation by the bishop.

Answer 8

Levirate marriage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage) is a relevant term. However, it's specifically for a woman marrying her deceased husband's brother; a man marrying a succession of sisters is not levirate marriage.

Answer 9

 - Interesting "Odd" topic - - but , thank you  Clare Spring for the Cat -  The nesting Cat is = Forms of Marriage  =   which shows other variations = Married Siblings (19th-20th century UK) =   -

However, the  = Married Successive Siblings  = is a bit misleading , and perhaps should be titled "Married, Spouses Sibling(s)" , with a Country 'tag' , to allow for the differing legislation, and conditions of the times. - - -

I have a family profile (pioneers 1850's) , West Aust, where the widow was looked after by her husband's elder brother; I can not find a marriage for them , but her children carry his/her surname - 'confusing' to say the least - -  Another , is Claude de Bernales , who later married his wife's sister, no children.  cheers - -

Answer 10

Quincys  and Ferrers......one daughter became step mother to the other...... who became stepmother to her stepmother.