It’s been a long time since I saw The Bride Wore Black (La mariée était en noir).
Is there any truth to the “Hint”? And if it were so, would that give the first sentence a logical reading, in some meaning other than the straightforward one (as used in the film), of the bridegroom dying (being killed) following the marriage ceremony?
Comics I Don't Understand 
A person is widowed if they have a deceased spouse. It is only convention that implies that those conditions must be met in a particular order.
One of the tenets of the ceremony is that both partners must assent to the wedding of their own free will (coercion is a ground for annullment). A dead person cannot assent, and therefore cannot be married. The hint is patently false.
P.S. The link in the lead-in sentence is empty and does not work.
(I’ve heard that we’re “not supposed” to check out the comments at publication or syndication sites. Well, fair warning, that’s where this idea comes from.)
I ran across the suggestion that in some places, in time of war, the fiancee or girlfriend of a soldier who was killed on duty could sometimes get a posthumus marriage decree, especially if pregnant — so the idea would be to give the child legitimacy (as they thought of it then).
Kilby: Link worked for me?
Thanks, Kilby. The link has been repaired. It just goes to the IMDB main reference page for that film. (Sometimes my gravatar appears as someone related to that movie.)
Kilby: The hint appears to be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_marriage_in_France
Ooops. Thanks to WW for finding the relevant article. I did search before I posted @2, but unfortunately I didn’t use the (blindingly obvious) correct search terms. However, the fairly strict conditions imposed by the French law do add up to proving that the deceased party had already in some way assented to the marriage.
Danny, no, there isn’t a “rule” like that. The only seriously-enforced rules are to maintain civility, and to avoid topics likely to derail civility.
There may not be a full articulation of some less-stringently-observed suggested principles (in part discussed in the CIDU FAQ), but I take a sense from the occasions when people raise an objection that a main point there is not to damper our discussion by an appeal to authority — such as an author/cartoonist’s statements, though those can be of interest if not taken to be definitive — and not to squelch our discussions in favor of other discussions.
So there’s nothing problematic about you introducing an idea from another discussion. Especially as part of that was already given within the cartoon itself. And looking up facts, as Winter Wallaby has done, is just what is needed sometimes!
Interpretation of the comic: I see it as a riddle. “I became a widow on my wedding day.” [How could that be?] Ans: The groom was already dead.
(Never mind that it is perfectly possible, even if unusual and tragic, for a groom to die on his wedding day.)
Just a sidelight: not only did Woolrich write THE BRIDE WORE BLACK (which fits this trope — husband killed moments after the ceremony) but also I MARRIED A DEAD MAN (which doesn’t actually do so — woman pretends to a dead man’s family that she had been his wife, tragedy ensues — it’s Woolrich, so that almost goes without saying — but wow, what a great title!)
Ha! I’d never looked that closely at your gravatar. All this time I had assumed it was Tom Baker (aka the fourth Dr. Who.)
I wouldn’t think there’d be much problem with strip comments (other than how dumb they often are) because those people don’t know any more than we do. Usually less.
There was also a film based on the book, by François Truffaut in 1968.
(I know this because the film inspired a song by Kate Bush, though she used a different title.)
Grawlix, thanks for bringing it around full circle!
My dad used to enjoy asking the question “Under Massachusetts law, is it legal for a man to marry his widow’s sister?”
MiB: A plane crashes right on the border of Country A and Country B, carrying citizens of both and of Country C. Where must the survivors be buried?
This can be tarted up with additional pointless facts, like it is a disputed border, or one of the countries is not internationally recognized, or where it took off. Or add to the faux legalism by asking under which country’s laws should it be decided where the survivors are to be buried.
So often they put a fuss during the burial.
Reminds me of a French pun I heard once:
Bonjour, je voudrais un capot noir.
Un capot noir, Monsieur?
Oui, ma femme est morte
Ah, quelle finesse
@ Mikep (19) – I’m not sure I like resurrecting a two year old thread for a bit of black NSFW humor that was so rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, but nevertheless, it was amusing.
P.S. For everyone else: you have been warned; look it up at your own risk.
Was it the thread resurrection or the NSFW etc which was the main problem?
Re the former, I expect this thread was highlighted as “related” to a current one. I’m never sure if that makes old threads fair game or not.
@ Mikep (21) – I’m not that worried about either issue. Bill might have censored that anecdote (he was very careful about not wanting to offend readers), but you had the excellent good sense not to offer a translation, which is roughly equivalent to the way that “Arlo” material used to be hidden behind a link to a separate website. Waking up old posts is also OK, as long as the new comment is relevant to the topic.
“I’m never sure if that makes old threads fair game or not.”
I would think that basically, old threads are always fair game.
@ Kilby.
Thanks for the explanation. It can’t, of course, be translated anyway – chapeau/capot doesn’t work in English.
I did think of the NSFW aspect, but came down on the side of where do we end up if we ban all NSFW/rude/crude/socially unacceptable humour.