declared invalid so she and her child could be removed.30 A similar case
was that of Elizabeth Jones, who married John Morgan, her uncle-in-
law, in 1843. After he died, Elizabeth went on relief and at first took the
settlement of her ‘husband’. However, the parish authorities soon learned
that her marriage was invalid. Though Elizabeth’s mother was only a half-
sister (because illegitimate), the laws of consanguinity held, and Elizabeth
went back to her home parish, her marriage declared void in a very public
manner.31
Stil , if the families could avoid the Poor Law, they might live together
(or even marry) without serious consequences. Most couples in affinal
unions – and even some consanguineous ones – remained part of their
communities. Denham, in a typical passage from the 1848 Commission,
insisted such marriages were not considered immoral by ‘intelligent and
well-informed people.’32 In addition, the reluctance of juries to convict for
perjury shows support, or at least indifference, to the legal position. Cases
with close blood relations or large age differences might excite disapproval,
but affinal marriages would not. In other words, popular self-marriage
persisted through the Victorian era. Indeed, judges’ and juries’ leniency
indicated that working-class behaviour influenced the state to mitigate the
punishments for illegal unions.
Middle-class marriages of prohibited degrees
Middle-class people also married within the prohibited degrees, but they
had a smaller range of acceptable partners. The overwhelming majority
of the records concern in-laws. Of the twenty-seven legal cases that show
marriages of too close proximity in the middle class, twenty-five were affinal
(the two exceptions were a half-nephew/half-aunt and an uncle/niece). The
disgust for blood marriages in higher life was evident in the uncle/niece
case; the judge who voided that marriage called it ‘exceedingly revolting to
the opinions and feelings of mankind’.33 In addition, the range of acceptable
affinal marriages was smal , since eighteen of the affinal cases involved
marriage with a deceased wife’s sister. Only one other category, that of
marriage with a deceased husband’s brother, got more than one case, and
there were only two of these, both before 1850. Though the sample is smal ,
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
it indicates that the middle classes had more taboos about consanguineous
and affinal unions than the working class, and that the ban against such
59
j
j
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
living in sin
unions increased over time. Of the seven affinal cases not involving the
sister of a deceased wife, only two occurred after 1816.34
The witnesses before the Royal Commission in 1848 gave slightly more
variety in their examples, but the vast majority were still affinal, usual y of
a deceased wife’s sister or niece, and occasional y of a deceased husband’s
brother. Thomas Campbell sent out investigators to all areas of England,
and each diligently searched for affinal marriages. The total came to 1,648
cases, and of these 1,501 were marriages with a deceased wife’s sister, and
a further 147 were with a deceased wife’s niece or another affinal relative.
There were six cases of men marrying their blood nieces, but these cases
were dwarfed by those with in-laws.35
Before 1835, these marriages at least had the chance of remaining
valid at law. In El iott and Sugden v. Gurr in 1812, for instance, the marriage
in question was that of Sarah Lester and her deceased husband’s nephew,
William Gurr. Sarah’s brother and sister sued to get her estate from
William after she died intestate, but the courts rejected their attempt: since
the marriage had not ‘been declared void in the lifetime of the parties[,]
the husband remained husband to all civil purposes’.36 All such couples,
though, ran a risk of a hostile party suing within their lifetimes. Anne and
David Williams were aunt and nephew-in-law; their marriage was upset
when James Bryant brought an incest case against them in 1769, most likely
to protect the property for the children of the first marriage. As indicated
in Chapter 1, too, the nature of the unions could be an advantage to a
spouse who wished to leave. Charlotte Aughtie married her brother-in-
law, William, fourteen months after the death of her husband. She sued to
be relieved of the marriage in 1810, apparently to protect her inheritance.
Judges increasingly disapproved of these kinds of suits, though. In a
case in 1888, a woman who married her deceased sister’s husband sued
to get a declaration of nullity. The judge granted the request, but refused
costs, since he thought it ‘odd, when two people choose to go through a
ceremony which they both of them know to be illegal and void, that either
of them should be entitled to come here and ask for a decree of nullity.’37 In
the working classes, the ability to walk away from such unions primarily
benefited men, but in the middle classes, both sexes took advantage of the
loophole, which was perhaps what concerned the judge.
As these cases indicate, the middle classes preferred to have a
marriage ceremony, but they did not have to risk prosecution. Because of
their means, they could go abroad to one of the countries that permitted
affinal marriages, including Switzerland and many German states. Though
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
such marriages were not valid at English law, the marriage certificate and
ceremony gave public sanction to the union. Many, in the first few decades
j
j 60
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
affinity and consanguinity
after the 1835 act, even hoped that the laws would soon change or at least
that their children might be legitimised. One barrister testified that he
had married his deceased wife’s sister in Holstein. Though he knew the
marriage was void in England, he hoped that the English courts would
uphold his conveyance of his property to his children.38
Considerable disadvantages came with contracting a marriage that
was not recognised at English law. Why, then, did so many couples do so?
Most participants insisted that the first wife wanted her sister to marry her
husband and care for their children, a reason that echoed the concerns of
the working class. A stockbroker who married his wife’s sister in Denmark
in 1844 claimed that his wife had said, ‘she should die happy’ if he did so. A
Manchester businessman testified that he married
his sister-in-law because
his wife had ‘expressed a very strong desire’ for it. Such concerns lasted well
past mid-century. John Pettifer wrote to the Home Office in 1907 to lobby
for a change in the law because, he explained, his dying wife ‘begged of
me to have her sister to mother & care for her children out of respect for
her & her family.’39 Aunts were natural caregivers for children, and their
maternal duties put them in the place of a wife. William Holman Hunt,
the Pre-Raphaelite painter, lost his first wife, Fanny Waugh, in childbirth.
The maternal family took charge of the baby, Cyril, as a matter of course,
particularly Fanny’s younger sister, Edith. In time, Hunt became attached
to her as wel , and they married a few years later in Switzerland.40
Many men preferred women they already knew and who would cause
minimal disruption. Thomas Franklyn grew up with both of his future
wives, two of eleven sisters. After his wife’s death, he turned to a woman he
‘knew … to be virtuous and good’. The larger community also understood
these reasons; when Lord George Hill married his deceased wife’s sister,
his tenants said ‘how wise George had been not to bring a stranger into
his family.’ In addition, men did not want to part their sisters-in-law from
children they loved. Richard Cobden’s sisters both married William Sale,
and Cobden supported the second union. His younger sister had acted as a
second mother, and Cobden believed ‘it would have been almost the death
of my sister if she had been obliged to part with the child.’41
Because of the illegal status of these unions, families could react
negatively to them. Waugh’s parents were furious when she announced her
engagement to Hunt and forbade the match. Hunt’s mother disinherited
him, and Edith also lost all hope of a marriage settlement by the terms
of her father’s wil . The feud estranged two branches of the family for
decades.42 Nor were the Waughs unique in their concern. Henry Thornton,
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
a prominent mid-century banker, married his deceased wife’s sister in
1852. His siblings opposed the marriage vehemently. Only his eldest sister,
61
j
j
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
living in sin
Marianne, remained in contact with him; the rest refused to receive them.
They would not even refer to his wife, Emily Dealty, by her married name,
always styling her ‘E. D.’ in letters.43
Several of the witnesses to the Royal Commission also mentioned
family opposition in their testimony. James Brotherton testified that when
one Independent minister married his sister-in-law, it ‘gave rise to much
family bickering’. An anonymous barrister who married his deceased
wife’s sister in Holstein admitted that some of his relatives disapproved.
The woman’s family objected more often, knowing that she would bear the
brunt of social and legal disabilities. Another barrister who married his
deceased wife’s sister admitted that her father opposed the marriage at first,
though he later relented. His father-in-law explained, ‘it was his duty to
oppose it, because he considered it illegal.’44
All the same, many families were warmly supportive. At times,
maternal families promoted the marriages because they did not want
an unmarried sister-in-law living with a now-widowed man, as many
witnesses in 1848 attested.45 At other times, relatives were simply happy
to keep congenial in-laws in the family fold. John Crook married two
sisters, first Sarah Ann Hil , who died in 1851, then Mary Hil . John Hil ,
the women’s father, showed no disapproval of the second marriage, leaving
his property to Mary and John and their children. A similar case was that
of John Harrison, who had continued to associate with his daughter and
son-in-law, James Higson, despite the fact that James had first married
John’s sister. He, too, left his daughter his property, and he always referred
to Anne as James’s ‘wife’.46
Most of the siblings in these families apparently managed to blend
together, at least as well as any of the stepfamilies that were common in an
age of high mortality. In the case of marriages with a deceased wife’s sister,
the children from first and second marriages were both half-siblings and
cousins, which may have made them closer. In the Hunt family, Cyril got
along well with his half-sister and brother, Gladys and Hilary. Gladys was
jealous of her full sibling, but adored Cyril.47 Some families had large age
differences, so older siblings might resent sharing the estate with a new
family, but the majority of the legal cases over incestuous marriages did
not involve legitimate siblings trying to disinherit their half siblings. Most
will disputes occurred when extended kin tried to get the estate or when
the crown claimed it.48 Unsurprisingly, the harmony was not unanimous.
Some of those testifying before the Royal Commission argued that such
marriages led to tensions. Revd Joseph Owen, a vicar in Staffordshire,
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
knew a family who quarrelled over property. During the argument ‘one of
the children of the first marriage … cast into the teeth of the children of the
j
j 62
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
affinity and consanguinity
second marriage their illegitimacy.’49 Stil , though this case was not unique,
it was not the norm.
Tensions were greater between the generations than between siblings.
One man testified that his eldest daughter was jealous of her aunt’s position
in the house; he hoped by marrying his sister-in-law, the daughter would
be more reconciled to sharing housekeeping.50 The close relationship
between fathers and daughters in middle-class homes would have made
the transition to a new stepmother hard for some daughters. In addition,
when the second wife had children herself, she might show preference to
her own. Waugh became jealous of her stepson, Cyril, after her marriage
to Hunt, so she favoured her own son and daughter.51 Ironical y, too, the
success of the maternal aunt might mean that paternal ones suffered.
Marianne Thornton had tended her nieces since their mother’s death, but
lost them when they left the country with their father and new step-mother.
She was broken-hearted at their ‘exile’.52
Though tensions within the nuclear family circle existed, the majority
of testimonies indicated positive reactions of extended family and friends.
The attitude of the wi
der middle-class society was more problematic,
since the middle class had strict standards about sexuality. And, equal y
important, the participants in these marriages felt uneasy themselves.
Diana Holman-Hunt argued that Hunt and Waugh ‘imagined slights
where none were intended’ during their engagement. The stockbroker
who married his wife’s sister warned his friends about his marriage before
they called so they could decide if they still wanted to do so. Indeed, some
couples moved to new cities where no one knew them to avoid possible
slights.53 Not all these fears were unfounded. When Edith Waugh called
on the Rosettis after her marriage, for instance, Christina Rosetti refused
to receive her. Problems were particularly acute for those couples whose
vicars disapproved; a surgeon in Shropshire lost almost all his friends when
his marriage to his wife’s sister offended his clergyman.54
The disapproval became more serious after mid-century. Henry
Thornton made an all-out effort to have the prohibition against marriage
with deceased wives’ sisters removed in 1850. The ecclesiastical party in
Parliament defeated the bil , but they were alarmed by the attempt and
became less tolerant as a result. Thornton’s own brother-in-law, Revd
Charles Forster, approved of his Bishop’s attempts to punish affinal matches.
Forster’s bishop told the clergy to ‘treat the man as excommunicate and to
reject him from the Communion; to refuse to church the woman; and to
register the children as illegitimate.’55 At the least, no middle-class person
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
could remain ignorant of the illegality of these unions after the Royal
Commission of 1848 and the defeat of the 1850 bil . Thus, anyone who
63
j
j
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
living in sin
lived in a parish with a disapproving vicar could find themselves social y
snubbed.
As a result, the couples’ lives were subject to various disruptions.
J. S. Thorburne reported of a woman and her brother-in-law who were
Living in Sin Page 13