Lou, I think this must be a mistaken assumption on the part of the author. First, if there was a marriage circa 1692+, it was conducted by a minister of the church. Why would the church perform and sanction an “incestuous” marriage?
If the parties discovered after the fact that the marriage should have been barred for one reason or another, the marriage was not automatically void. In other words, it wouldn’t affect legal documents executed during the “marriage”. The only time this wouldn’t be true is in the case of bigamy, [knowingly being married to 2 people at the same time], which would make the marriage void, as if it never happened, and any action resulting from the marriage, void.
A woman had no legal existence during marriage. As soon as the woman married, the property became her husband’s. He could sell it, with only the certification attached that she was agreeable to the sale. Even if a marriage was later declared voidable, the actions taken during the marriage were not voidable. The husband had every right to act for his wife, during the time they believed they were married.
If there was a problem with the ecclesiastical law, I don’t see how that would affect land obtained when she was a widow. Land wasn’t handled by ecclesiastical law or courts. The civil courts would only be concerned that there was a marriage conducted by the church. A violation of ecclesiastical law wouldn’t affect civil law of executing a deed, for instance. Also, incest was defined as a relationship in the direct descent, such as grandfather/father/ son or daughter, and brother/sister. The definition, at this point in time, did not include uncle/niece/ nephew/ or other collateral relationships. That being the case, I don’t see why a civil court would be concerned about a woman marrying someone who she was not related to, by blood. The cannon law I’ve seen only mentions blood relationships.
So, I think a wrong assumption, based on 20th century understanding, was made to explain the court case. If there is still a pleading or answer extant, I’d bet money the word “incestuous” is not used. Perhaps the facts were laid out to explain the history, and the author assumed that history was the direct cause of the case.
Langdon Hagen-Long
JLP <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I have been following the subject topic with interest, and had hoped
that someone would bring up the fact that marrying a spouse's sibling
was an "issue" in Virginia long before the 1792 (?) law that Paul
Drake (and others) cited. For example, there's the case of the widow
of Francis Poythress about whom John Bodie wrote [Historical Southern
Families, Vol. IV, p. 31]:
"Francis Poythress m. Rebecca Coggin, daughter of John Coggin.
As Rebecca Poythress, she was granted 1000 acres of land in Charles
City 28 April 1692, said land being late in the tenure of Edward
Ardington. She later married (2) Charles Bartholomew, the widower of
her sister. This resulted in court action, as according to the
ecclesiastical law in effect in Virginia at that time, this
constituted an incestuous marriage."
The above case seems to be referring to the same issue, and it was
MUCH earlier than the 1792 law. Or am I misreading the implications?
Lou Poole, Richardson, TX
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
