Story idea? Levirate marriage

In a comment to a recent story of mine, Sebastian pointed out that there are some interesting old customs involving widows and their brothers-in-law. A quick bit of research yielded "Levirate marriage", a sort of a forced marriage between in-laws after the death of a husband or wife. It's found in several cultures.

A related Jewish custom, rooted in Torah law, is "Yibbum", which requires a man to marry his brother's childless widow .

It just seems to me that there is fodder for spanking stories here. Since these are ancient customs,a period piece would be natural, but the concept also works in modern times. It won't be me because I just wrote a widow/brother-in-law story.

Guy

I think this is great stuff for an interesting historical series.

Is this idea about to go Le-viral?

That is interesting, since the Catholic church used discourage this practice, and required people to get special permission to marry the sibling of their deceased spouse....(I think that was one of the grounds used by Henry the 8th to try and get an anulment from Catherine of Aragon?)

(Sorry, that was a bit off topic...and has nothing to do with writing stories... I just really found the fact that it was a custom in other cultures interesting!)

It's a custom that's frowned on in the bible, but it quite common in areas where there were multiple marriages and no welfare system. In those areas, it was basically the social safety net - you incorporated the dead person's immediate family in yours and everything worked out.

Alas, it became a factor in the spread of AIDS in Africa. Some areas still practice it, but many have abandoned it - leaving survivors without a safety net.

Goodgulf

I don't think if it was frowned on in the bible, at least not by the nation of Israel. Israel had a practice that if a husband died before a male heir was born to continue the family name, then the widow would be married to the husband's brother or the nearest male relative. Any male child born to the widow would legally be considered the child of the dead husband and would assume all rights of a first born male child.

This practice was in the laws of the nation of Israel set out by God in the book of Exodus and explained in further books like Numbers and Deuteronomy.

I agree with Goodgulf in that the practice in Africa and other places has led to AIDS and other STD's being spread, but it is only one on many practices in Africa that also contribute.

Tasha is correct about Henry VIII. It seems not to have been just a cynical device. Of course a male heir was vital to the whole country, which had not so long emerged from a period of feudal civil war based on disputed claims to the crown. Henry felt, in line with common views at the time, that the barrenness of his marriage was a judgement from God. What for? The ready explanation was that the marriage was with the wife of his dead elder brother, which was indeed frowned on and required Papal permission. Not sure why the practice was frowned on - perhaps by some confusion with marrying close relatives, a rule that no doubt originated in observations that such unions often produced children with some major problems; perhaps even from fear that a normal practice of marrying the dead brother's wife would lead to men who fancied a brother's wife murdering the brother!

Here's a quote I found when I was verifying something about Henry VIII's life:
'as told in the Book of Leviticus, "If a brother is to marry the wife of a brother they will remain childless." '
But I found that after writing most of this reply and decided just to just that as a prelude to what I had already written.

---

Here's a more detailed explanation of why it's frowned on (or forbidden) by some churches:
When two people marry the couple becomes one person - at least in a spiritual sense. His brothers and sisters become her brothers and sisters. Her brothers and sisters become his brothers and sisters. They get each others parents. In modern times we qualify blood relatives and marriage spawned relatives with "in-law" but back in Henry's time they didn't.

And just think about the origin of "in-law". It basically says that the law considers the two of you to be related even though there is no blood connection.

"Your brother there, is he your brother in blood?"
"No, but he's legally my brother so he's my brother-in-law."

When Henry VIII married for the first time, he was legally and spiritually marrying his sister. He had two Papal dispensations (i.e. the Pope gave him permission to sin in two ways) - one that would excuse his sin if his brother's marriage had been consummated and one that would excuse things if it hadn't. His first wife said she was still a virgin when she married Henry and during the divorce she tried to call Henry to verify that, but he wouldn't testify on her behalf (because he wanted the divorce).

See, back then when a young noble couple got married they would be sent to an estate where they could be alone and get to know each other and when they were ready (hopefully sometime after they had learned each others names) they could get it on. Often they were alone for months. Henry's brother (who was English) and Henry's first wife (who was Spanish) were doing the "do we even have any languages in common?" bit when Henry's brother died and officially no one was sure if they did it before he died.

And there is evidence that Henry really thought that God was against his marriage. During the "I need a son to inherit" discussions that led to the divorce the Pope's representative basically offered to declare Henry Fitzroy (Henry VIII's acknowledge bastard son) to be Henry's legitimate heir if he stayed married. Yes, he had a son (at least one) outside of marriage whereas in his marriage... His wife had a daughter who lived (and later became Bloody Mary), several miscarriages, two stillborns, and three children (two of them boys) who died as infants. Two of those didn't live a month and the third's dates were 1 January 1511 to 23 February 1511 (that's the bit that I had to check).

Henry knew that he had at least one son out of wedlock - so this lack of boys couldn't be his fault, so it had be because of a joint sin. Faced with that hard evidence that God didn't like Henry's marriage to his first wife, Henry decided that the Pope's "permission to sin" wasn't worth the paper it was scribed on. That, and he really, really needed a male heir or the War of the Roses might reignite. In theory he could have picked a relative and declared him heir, but Henry made a habit of executing any relative who gave him an excuse to execute them (it was a habit he picked up from his father) so there weren't a lot of candidates left for that... and with his most recent mistress maybe being preggers (there's debate over that) Henry wanted his new son to be legitimate... Then his second wife made some big mistakes:
1) she gave birth to a daughter (who would become Elizabeth I), and
2) she miscarried at least twice - and the second time it was thought to be a boy.

Or maybe it wasn't her fault. No, clearly this was God saying that the divorce wasn't valid -and when Wife #2 fought him divorcing her she was accused of adultery, incest, and treason and was thusly executed. There was no doubt that the third marriage was valid as Wife #3 (married after the deaths of Wife #1 and Wife #2) gave him a son. Okay, she died as a result of giving birth (probably because of Henry's sin of marrying his sister), but Henry had his boy.


If anyone wants to see a good example "Okay kids, you're married - now live together for a while and when you're both ready have at it" I would urge you to watch the movie "Lady Jane", It's a 1986 movie with Patrick Stewart playing Lady Jane's father. For those of you who have already watched "the clip" there's far more to the movie than Lady Jane being birched because she wouldn't marry the boy her parents wanted her to marry (she really wanted to marry her first cousin - the king - but that wasn't in the cards). That film also explains why neither of Henry VIII's daughters (Queen Mary - daughter of dissolved marriage to his own sister; Queen Elizabeth, daughter of an incestuous adulterer) should have ever inherited the throne and also why Henry VIII's nephew James IV of Scotland (who was later crowned James I of England) could never inherit the English throne.

And you thought politics was a soap opera now!

But back on topic:
If the church believes that marrying results in two becoming one then marrying your sister-in-law is like marrying your sister. Many churches frown on that - just as they frown on you marrying your adopted sister (i.e. a girl that your parents have adopted).

Goodgulf

It would seem the Bible both forbids and encourages the practice:

Leviticus 20:21
If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

Deuteronomy 25:5
If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

Henry VIII of course was not childless - though he considered having a daughter the same as having no child at all.

LOL how very shocking

Cynical Angel