#11
|
||||
|
||||
Oh dear, off to educate myself with Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists which has recently arrived on my doorstep.
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
What I said applies to English law - US (and even Scottish) law may be different.
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That explains the bit in the statements that said they didn't collude or connive together.
__________________
Toni |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
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
__________________
Avatar..St Peters Church Thundersley Essex 'Take nothing on its looks, take everything on evidence. There is no better rule' Charles Dickens, Great Expectations. Last edited by Chris in Sussex; 18-01-13 at 07:09. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
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!)
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Ah, that's interesting, I didn't realise that.
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
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!
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|