Genealogy Chat

I have found a marriage(1914) that maybe my grandmother's second one. She left her first husband in 1900,he died just two month's before her in 1948. I was wondering how common divorce was as this time,I know my grandmother was poor and only lived in tiny houses,so how could she afford a divorce? I am waiting for the marriage certificate to arrive to see if this 1914 one is her,it matches name's and place where they lived. Maybe it was a bigamous marriage. Its high time I had a bit of spice in my tree!!!! Sheila

Not very common at all really in 1914, and yes, it was an expensive business. However, I was recently very surprised to see someone's divorce papers from 1898 - divorce was granted by Act of Parliament, cost a small fortune, yet the family appeared to be Mill Workers! OC

I have one definite double-bigamist in Australia (great-granny who remarried twice while her first husband was alive, calling herself a widow). Her husband also remarried while she was alive, claiming to be a widower. Their daughter also remarried twice while her first husband was alive, saying that she was divorced - I haven't been able to check it out, because the Australian online divorce index doesn't go up to the date of her remarriage. Divorce was very unusual in those days, even for the rich.

Where did you find the divorce, OC? Do the National Archives have them?

If you could give her surname and the maximum time frame for the divorce, I'll have a look on The Times archive. Won't work if it's Smith, but may be possible to find it if an ordinary/rare surname! I have seen divorces for ordinary people (not wealthy) at that date. Think the act of parliament thingy was only up to 1857, wasn't it, OC????? Merry

Thank you Mary,you do have spice in your lot!! thank you for your reply. Sheila

Thankyou old crone,it must have taken some saving for,just to get rid of the old spouse!!! thankyou for your reply Sheila

I haven't looked yet! Was she with Mr Briggs in 1901? Was the person she married in 1914 Mr MacDougall or someone else? (just trying to get a timeframe!)

I would have thought that if the marriage is her, then the divorce would be nearer to that date than to 1901. So......I looked at the divorce records going backwards from 1914, but couldn't see one except for a Briggs v Briggs case where the couple had married in Mexico. Guess that isn't your couple??!!! Merry

Hi Merry thank you for your time in looking,No I dont reckon that will be my old granny in Mexico!! I will have to wait and see what the cert says. If it is her and no divorce,both her and her real husband were at the bigamy lark,Well...Well.!! Regards Sheila

No, Merry, this one was a divorce 'by Act of Parliament' and was heard by the House of Lords, who granted the divorce. The Church appear to have been involved (see below, shock horror) It seems genuine (I have seen a photocopy - the grounds for the divorce were, ahem, the husband';s insistence on 'an unnatural act', thus depriving the wife of the chance of having any children.) OC

Here's the bit you mean (second paragraph)!! Until the mid-nineteenth century, the law largely adopted the Christian view of marriage as an indissoluble lifelong union. The only way of obtaining a divorce was by a private Act of Parliament, and this lengthy and expensive procedure was available to very few people. From the first such Act, only 317 Acts were passed (nearly all at the husband's instigation) in the next 150 years. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, enabled the Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes to grant a divorce where the petitioner could ******prove not only that the respondent had committed adultery, but also incest, cruelty, bigamy, sodomy or desertion******. This extra requirement was abolished in 1923, but adultery (treated as a 'matrimonial offence') remained the only ground of divorce. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1937, introduced three further grounds for divorce: cruelty, desertion for at least three years, and incurable insanity. There was also a bar on any divorce within the first three years of marriage. The 1969 Divorce Reform Act restated the three existing fault grounds of adultery, desertion and cruelty (widened to ‘unreasonable behaviour’) and added the two ‘no-fault’ separation grounds. Until 1969 it was impossible for a 'guilty' spouse to divorce an 'innocent' partner. As long as the innocent spouse took care not to be caught in adultery, he or she could effectively block the other's divorce and remarriage. Merry