Divorce Records 1858-1914 - ancestry

[Janet]

Oh dear, off to educate myself with Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists which has recently arrived on my doorstep.

[Mary from Italy]

What I said applies to English law - US (and even Scottish) law may be different.

[Phoenix]

In the early days at least, the judges weren't too impressed if the couple both wished to part and connived at events to bring about a divorce.

[Mary from Italy]

No: although many couples did collude to get a divorce, it wasn't allowed, and if it was found out after the decree nisi, the decree absolute wasn't granted.

[Kit]

Originally Posted by Janet

I don't think you need take legalese as much of a faithful indicator of real life stories in all cases, Toni. Sometimes the lawyer has to write the language that matches the hurdles to be got over in order to satisfy the "letter of the law."

I'd like to think that but some of the things were quiet awful and excessive if you were just making something up.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

In the early days at least, the judges weren't too impressed if the couple both wished to part and connived at events to bring about a divorce.

That explains the bit in the statements that said they didn't collude or connive together.

[Chris in Sussex]

I thought that in early divorces (until 19something) the husband could claim just for adultery but the wife would have to prove not only adultery but also that he had actually done something wrong So adultury and cruelty and that would explain why cruelty features rather heavily in the records.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong

Chris

[Merry]

Divorce of a husband for adultery without additional grounds only became law in 1923 (Matrimonial Causes Act).

Before that (from 1858) women divorcing on the grounds of adultery not only had to prove their husbands had been unfaithful but also had to prove additional faults, which included cruelty, rape and incest.

So, as well as not being able to divorce your husband for adultery alone (as he could you), you could not divorce your husband for cruelty alone) I think, anyway!)

[Mary from Italy]

Ah, that's interesting, I didn't realise that.

[Merry]

I randomly entered some of my surnames into the search and turned up my 3xg-uncle divorcing his wife in 1884. I already knew he had emigrated to New Zealand leaving his "wife" behind and in his will he had stated he was single. Up to now I'd thought he was lying!

The funny bit is (after some delving), the co-respondent turns out to be the local registrar for marriages!

[Janet]