Plots surrounding marriage laws in pre-war England have been put to task by writers and readers alike of late. One RT letter column featured a letter from Mary Jo Putney regarding laws prohibiting a widow/er from marrying his/her deceased spouse's sibling. At the same time, a letter from Lucy Breen came across my desk stating: "You might want to inform those of your readers who are contemplating historical romances that one of the most common plot lines-marrying a deceased spouse's sibling-was illegal in England until after World War I. There were no dispensations, no ways around it. No matter how well written it might be, a book is hard to enjoy when the reader knows that the premise was impossible."

Also for the record, a widower could not marry his niece or aunt by marriage, nor his step-daughter. A lunatic or idiot could not lawfully contract a marriage, except during a lucid interval. Insanity after marriage did not invalidate it.

Yet in both life and literature, laws were broken. A clergyman could be bribed to perform a marriage ceremony. Could banns have been posted? No. Would such a marriage be legal? No. Would the children of such a marriage be seen as legitimate heirs in a court of law? No. But clandestine marriages did take place between two people who, knowing full well their marriage would not be legal, still wanted to go through with some sort of ceremony in order to solemnize their vows. A classic case in point is the Prince Regent. Forget the fact that the bribed clergyman looked the other way in the absence of a marriage license and that Mrs. Maria Fitzherbert was a Catholic widow-the marriage was invalidated by the fact that Prinny, as an heir to the throne under the age of 21, hadn't gotten the King's permission to marry.

Other evidence was recorded in the diary of Joseph Farington, dated 7 June, 1804-"Lord Ferrers has an estate which may be 10,000 pounds a year, and he has saved much money. He is very little visited or respected. He married when young a lady in Kent privately and by her had one son. The marriage became known, and he used means to sully the character of his wife, but in vain. She sued him for a maintenance and he was obliged to pay her 800 pounds a year."

And lastly, a passage from one of the Princess Lieven's collection of letters, dated Tuesday, 2 July 1822-"Society is all affairs of gallantry-there is a positive epidemic of them-and yesterday a clandestine marriage took place under the most extraordinary auspices. What strange beings these Englishwomen are! Think of it, a little miss running away at nine in the morning from her parents' house, arriving at the church door, seizing two passers-by in the street and forcing them to be witness of the ceremony! The young man for his part had hired a parson and caught a passer-by too. They were married and left at once, meaning to cross to France. When they got to Rochester, they realized that they had not a half penny; and there they are stuck, living presumably on love, for they have nothing else. The girl is own niece to the Duke of Wellington, and the young man is the Marquis of Worcester, future Duke of Beaufort. He lost his wife a year ago; it is his wife's sister he has just married. The canons of the Church do not allow this, so that his present wife must be regarded from now on as his mistress. The whole town is talking about the incident."

Also, let's address my favorite author faux pas-the heiress in charge of her fortune and running a vast estate. A woman, married or not, might be given any sum of money, land, property, etc., by gift or inheritance. The principal, however, was administered through a trust. If no trustee(s) had been specified, then it became an Equity case and trustees were legally appointed in the Chancery Court. In no case did a woman have complete control over these monies or estates. Also, property could be earmarked for a married woman's "separate use," whether she came by it through gift, will or from her husband. She could raise money on the property and leave it to whomever she wished in her will. Once again, restrictions were placed upon the woman's right by the endower; she could use the income or interest from the property as she wished but could not mortgage or dispose of it. A married or single female inheriting a vast fortune was rare. By the way, the Equity Courts did not deal with property valued at less than 200 pounds. If your heroine must have complete control over her own money, it cannot be above this sum.