Genealogy Chat

Julie I think it was quite common in those days because divorce was very expensive & only the rich could afford it so people just lied and remarried. I dont know what the law was in those days if she had been found out, are you sure her first husband was still alive when she remarried? Georgina.

If there anyone who can help me. I have a women married in the UK in 1843. In 1853 she left England and went to America leaving her husband and children behind. In 1855 in America she married again. Under English Law she would have committed bigamy. What I would like to know is, if this women returne to England or infact remained in England, what would have happened to her for commiting this offence? Thankyou Julie

Hi Georgina Yes, he continued in living in Enland with their children. He did not die until 1875.

The punishment for bigamy was from one to five years in prison. However, not many people got caught and if every body kept quiet then no one was any the wiser. It was very common. One small thing - did the husband remarry? A deserted man or woman could get permission to remarry if their spouse was believed to have gone overseas - I have one such instance in my tree and have heard of someone else who has the same thing. No divorce was necessary, but the Bishop had to grant permission. OC

Dear OC Thank you for that. As far as I can see he did not remarry as on 1861 and 1871 census records he is living in lodgings, once with his son and then on his own, he was recorded as being married. I dont know if he ever knew his wife had gone to America! History written for her in America does not say anything other than, she left her husband and went to America, no mention of the children she left behind either! He did not agree with her religion, as she was secretly bapisted to the LDS Church, whilst still in England. May it was him that kicked her out??? Julie

Thank you Andrew, very helpful information. Julie

Had she been caught there were three punishment options: 1) A fine 2) Imprisonment (this was the usual punishment) 3) Penal servitude - between 1853 and 1867 this involved either transportation or hard labour in an English prison. After 1867 it just involved hard labour. It was unusual for this option to be used. The actual husband could claim damages from the new husband for 'diminishing his wifes value'. He could, also,divorce his wife. However , this was a long and expensive process. First he had to bring a suit against the new husband. Then he could gain a religious divorce, this meant they were no longer married but neither party could legally remarry. After this he had to apply, through a private act of parliment, for the right to remarry. The divorce method was set in favour of the husband. Women could only divorce if they could prove ill treatment, adultery, etc. It is unlikely that she would have gained custody of her children had she returned. Women could only gained custody if they could prove they were the innocent party or the husband was agreeable to them having the children. If the actual husband did not want to separate he had the right to imprison his wife and claim his 'rights'. As the others have said, in actuality bigamy was very common and most people just ignored it and got on with their lives.

Andrew, if he did want to 'claim' his rights etc where would such records be held?

This is a bit more complicated than it seems. She remarried in US, which at that time I believe, allowed polygamy for Mormons. She therefore did not commit bigamy in that country. As she didnt marry bigamously in England, then English law would not consider her second marriage to be legal, or even worthy of consideration as an act of bigamy. So technically, no bigamy was committed - even if it was! OC

To claim damages from the new husband he would have had to file a claim at his local court. However, it is not likely this happened in your case as the new marriage occurred abroad and the husband did not know where his wife had gone. If you meant claim his rights from his wife - he would not have imprisoned her in an actual prison, so there would be no record of it occurring. Until the law changed in 1891 a husband could just lock her away in his house and claim his conjugal rights when ever he wanted. Details may have made the local paper or been passed down verbally in the locality, which is how I found out about one of my distant relatives actions. Until 1870, when a woman married they and all their belongings became the property of their husband, who could do with them as he wanted. If a woman was mistreated she could divorce, but she had to prove cruelty had occurred. If a married woman 'misbehaved' the husband could be held accountable because he should not have permitted her to act in such a manner. As such, under the law the first husband could be imprisoned for his wife being bigamously married. I don't know if that ever actually happened.