Tim Worstall

Polygamy in the UK

There’s two entirely separate things here which are unfortunately getting combined.

Polygamous marriage is flourishing as the Government admits for the first time that nearly a thousand men are living legally with multiple wives in Britain.

Although the families are entitled to claim social security for each wife, no one has counted how many of them are on benefits.

Ministers appear to be ignoring the separate practice of unauthorised polygamy, which is said to have become commonplace in some Muslim communities. The Ministry of Justice admits that it has no estimates of numbers for these unions, which are often presided over by an Islamic cleric.

A senior Conservative MP and immigration expert called for action last night to end the scandal of women being pressured into entering unrecognised marriages with no rights.

“The Government has no grip on the situation,” said Humphrey Malins, the former Shadow Home Affairs Minister and founder of the Immigration Advisory Service. “This is quite clearly exploitation of women.”

The first is the benefits system. To be honest, I really don’t care if extra payments are going to 1,000 families: such a drop in the ocean of public spending that, really, who could care?

However, the other and vastly more important issue is that raised by Humphrey Malins. I’m sure there are examples where polygyny is exploitation of women, just as I’m sure that there are monogynous marriages that are, as with monandrous ones. But if people wish to enter into private contracts, whether polyandrous or polygynous, what the hell has that got to do with a politician?

In

10 responses

  1. Philip Thomas Avatar
    Philip Thomas

    Frankly, I care though. The simple fact is that the government does play a role in private relationships by providing financial incentives in the form of benefits. So it should either look at relationships and promote those that promote social well-being through familial cohesion or it should back off and let it be an entirely private affair. I can’t see any government daring to do the latter so at least at first we have to get it to do the former. If you’ve never met people who have given their children purposely different surnames to capitalise on the system then count yourself lucky.

    Reply
  2. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    “But if people wish to enter into private contracts, whether polyandrous or polygynous, what the hell has that got to do with a politician?”
    Sunbsitute the word ‘pope’ for ‘politician’ and that could have been uttered by Henry VIII.

    Reply
  3. Bob B Avatar
    Bob B

    I’ve long been surprised that feminist movements haven’t campaigned for legimation of polyandrous relationships.

    Reply
  4. Steve Avatar
    Steve

    That’s an extreme libertarian position that Reason magazine, for one, has disavowed in the past.
    The flippant answer to your question is that I don’t want to live in a world where David Beckham has 1000 wives and I can’t have sex ever again.
    The more serious answer is that in history, polygamy is reasonably common, while polyandry is almost unheard of, and I see little reason to suppose a different situation today. Meanwhile, men who have no chance of marrying are more likely to join gangs, commit sexual violence and view marriage as a violent competition.
    There’s quite a good article on it here:
    http://www.reason.com/news/show/117323.html
    Tim adds: Not sure that polyandry is unheard of…I’ve certainly read of a few cases where very poor brothers, who could only afford one bride price, did so, but then again, that’s already assuming a very different society from our own.

    Reply
  5. Chris Avatar
    Chris

    >But if people wish to enter into private contracts, whether polyandrous or polygynous, what the hell has that got to do with a politician?
    Well, fairly obviously, it may be that society, expressing its will via elected politicians,* deems certain kinds of contract undesirable. Does the term ‘contract killer’ ring a bell at all?
    *Yes, I know you think they’re all crooks. Try harder.
    Tim adds: That’s simple enough. A contract killer is harming the rights of another. Three, four or 15 people shagging, whether serially or in concert, are not.
    As law is there to adjudicate about breaches of said rights, as there is no breach there should be no law.

    Reply
  6. Monty Avatar
    Monty

    The problem Tim, is the special treasury rules exempting polygamous muslims from some or all of the iniquitous inheritance tax, which everyone else has to pay, regardless of the needs of their surviving family. This rule was, I think, never debated in the commons. Just slipped under the radar by the treasury. If the government is to stay out of private contractual arrangements, then let it do so equitably, with special favours for none.

    Reply
  7. Bob B Avatar
    Bob B

    “while polyandry is almost unheard of”
    Not so. Try the Inuit custom of wife-sharing as reported here:
    http://web.uvic.ca/bcics/research/students/arctic_co-ops.htm
    And the BBC had a piece a couple of years ago on its website about Nepal:
    “It is the harvesting season and Kundol Lama and her family are pulling up radishes in their small field above a river gorge in remote north-western Nepal. This is rigorous work, but Kundol has a little extra manpower at her disposal. She has two husbands, Tsering Yeshi and Pema Tsering, who are brothers.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4461196.stm

    Reply
  8. Sam Avatar
    Sam

    There is an obvious asymmetry between polygyny and polyandry. Only women can have babies, and the average “natural” child spacing is more than two years.
    One man, four women:
    Each woman can have a baby every couple of years; man gets a new child every 6 months.
    One woman, four men:
    Woman can have a baby every couple of years; each man gets a new child every 8 years.
    The fourth man would have to have unusually self-sacrificing genes to spend 8 years raisng someone else’s children before he gets his turn. If the other husbands are his brothers, he spends his 8 years raising his neices and nephews, which isn’t nearly so bad.

    Reply
  9. Bob B Avatar
    Bob B

    The interesting insight is that the incidence of polyandrous marriages in those communities where it was to be found evidently decreases as communal living standards rise.

    Reply
  10. Monty Avatar
    Monty

    Tim, I received your e-mail. Sorry for not replying via e-mail but I have come to hate my e-mail account. It does weird things when I try to send stuff.
    Anyway, if you look back at that same article, it does show that some polygamous marriages are recognised as legally valid in the UK:
    ““It is estimated that there are fewer than 1,000 valid polygamous marriages in the UK, few of whom are claiming a state benefit,” the Department for Work and Pensions said. “Because of the small numbers concerned, our IT systems do not specifically record such information.”
    Note the use of the word valid in there.
    Also-
    “Britain does recognise polygamous marriages that have taken place in countries where the custom is legal”
    I am no tax expert, but I do know this. On the death of a husband, any valid wife becomes a valid widow. The estate is always exempt from Inheritance Tax when passing to any surviving valid spouse, who is legally considered a joint owner of the assets anyway.
    If an estate of £1M passes to a single widow, then on her death her beneficiaries will be liable to IHT of about £290000, payable up front before Probate can be granted. There is no way round this, all loopholes have been closed.
    (Even if the value of the estate crashes in the intervening period between death and probate, they still have to pay the IHT based on the value at the date of death. They can not simply refuse the estate and duck the tax.)
    If it passes in equal shares to 4 (now independant) widows, then as they pass away, their beneficiaries will pay nothing. The threshold kicks in at anything above £285000 (value of a modest family home in some parts of England). If it passed in equal shares to say four siblings, or children, they would have to pay.
    And that threshold value includes Chattels (defined roughly as everything that would fall out of our house if you could turn it upside down.) This includes your car, furniture, frying pan, Teeshirts, vests, knickers, socks, trousers, the dog….
    As you can see, there are iniquities in this system.
    If your own will is vested in English Law Timmy, I strongly recommend that you and the missus burn your undies in the frying pan, throw the pan in the bin, give the dog away, and give the kids as much money as you can. Then stay alive for seven years.
    …naked.
    Cheers
    Monty

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading