[Elizabeth Craven and Thomas Whitfield were Linda's 3rd great-grandparents.]
Introduction
In 1856, Elizabeth Craven found herself at the centre of a quiet scandal in rural Hanmer. A widow since 1854, she sought to remarry—but not just anyone. She intended to marry her late husband’s brother, William Whitfield. The church refused. The reason? The proposed union was deemed “an illegal marriage – brother’s widow.”
But was it truly illegal?
A Widow's Resolve
Elizabeth Craven, born in 1815 and baptised in St Chad's Church, Hanmer, Flintshire, married Thomas Whitfield on 9 August 1838 in Wem, Shropshire. They were my 3rd-great-grandparents.
Together they had six children, building a life that lasted until Thomas died in 1854. Left a widow at 39, Elizabeth’s life took a dramatic turn when, just two years later, she appeared in the parish records of Hanmer—this time seeking to marry her brother-in-law, William Whitfield.
The banns were read in April 1856, but the record was promptly crossed out with a stark note:
“Illegal Marriage – brother’s widow.”
The church had spoken. But Elizabeth and William were not deterred.
Why Was It “Illegal”?
Under Church of England law, based on its interpretation of Old Testament scripture (particularly Leviticus 20:21), it was forbidden to marry a deceased spouse’s sibling. These restrictions were codified in the Table of Kindred and Affinity, which listed relationships considered too close for marriage.
Although marrying a brother-in-law was not a criminal act, such a marriage was invalid in the eyes of the Church—and therefore under civil law as well. Couples in this situation:
So, while Elizabeth and William weren’t committing a crime, their union wasn’t legally recognised—at least not yet.
The Marriage That Happened Anyway
Faced with the church’s refusal, Elizabeth and William took matters into their own hands. On 26 May 1856, just a month after being denied in Hanmer, they married in Tunstall, Staffordshire. Why Tunstall? William’s sister Anne Robinson (née Whitfield) lived in Tunstall with her husband, and Anne was one of the witnesses to the marriage. This connection may explain why they chose Tunstall as the place to marry—perhaps it provided both support and a degree of privacy.
Their haste may have had a very practical cause: their first child together, Margaret Whitfield, was registered in the third quarter of 1856 (July–September), only weeks after the wedding—strong evidence that Elizabeth was already expecting, and keen to ensure her baby’s legitimacy.
In all, Elizabeth and William had two children, expanding Elizabeth’s family to eight.
Change Comes Too Late
Elizabeth and William were ahead of their time. It wasn’t until 1907, a full decade after Elizabeth’s death, that Parliament passed the Deceased Brother’s Widow’s Marriage Act. This act legalised such marriages under civil law, allowing widows to marry their deceased husbands’ brothers—and vice versa. The change reflected a slow shift in public sentiment away from strict religious interpretations and towards personal choice and family continuity.
Importantly, the law did not compel the Church of England to conduct or bless such marriages, but it removed the legal penalty of invalidation. From 1907 onward, couples like Elizabeth and William would no longer have to marry in secret—or be told their love was against the law.
Legacy of a Quiet Rebellion
Elizabeth Craven’s story offers a glimpse into the quiet courage of a 19th-century woman who defied the rules of her time. Her decision to marry her brother-in-law may not have been driven purely by love—we cannot know for sure—but it was likely rooted in practical necessity. In the mid-1800s, widowed women with children often needed the support of a husband to maintain stability and security. Whatever the motivation, Elizabeth’s actions brushed against the boundaries of church doctrine and legal tradition, leaving a paper trail of defiance in the Hanmer parish register.
Today, that crossed-out banns entry tells us more than just a rejected marriage. It tells the story of a woman who moved forward despite resistance, and who—without knowing it—helped shape the slow march towards a more compassionate and rational marriage law.
Linda EYE on the PAST
