Divorce Records

Discussion in 'Court Records' started by Ma-dotcom, Jun 7, 2013.

  1. Ma-dotcom

    Ma-dotcom A Bonza Little Digger!

    Offline
    Messages:
    7,101
    Likes Received:
    18,906
    Location:
    South Australia
    Re reading two of Jan's articles on Divorce in England, :
    Which inc.
    ["What records can I find at The National Archives at Kew?
    Divorce case files (1858-1937)'}
    then:


    Was the above then the case still in 1911-1913? (3 +4)
    I've been trying to find two people who married 1895, were still together on 1901 census, but parted by 1911. Both married new partners in 1913.
    Might there have been 'no divorce' as we know it, & therefore the reason I cannot find any record.?
    p.s. this may answer a query Terry had a bit ago.
     
  2. Daft Bat

    Daft Bat Administrator. Chief cook & bottle washer! Staff Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    6,954
    Likes Received:
    27,726
    Location:
    Northamptonshire, England.
    Yes, I believe that it was. Therefore, right up until 1923, bigamy was often the "poor man's divorce".
     
    Ma-dotcom likes this.
  3. PeterG

    PeterG Well-Known Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    757
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    I don't think it would be bigamy if the seven year rule applied (see the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act).
     
    Ma-dotcom likes this.
  4. Daft Bat

    Daft Bat Administrator. Chief cook & bottle washer! Staff Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    6,954
    Likes Received:
    27,726
    Location:
    Northamptonshire, England.
    Good point, Peter. It just depends upon when in the 1901 to 1911 time-span that Wendy mentioned that the unhappy couple parted.
     
  5. Ma-dotcom

    Ma-dotcom A Bonza Little Digger!

    Offline
    Messages:
    7,101
    Likes Received:
    18,906
    Location:
    South Australia
    Thanks Peter & Jan, matters not, as not my life, but a huge help in finding why, when if the 7 yr rule was applied, & how it came about - nicely.
     
  6. Ma-dotcom

    Ma-dotcom A Bonza Little Digger!

    Offline
    Messages:
    7,101
    Likes Received:
    18,906
    Location:
    South Australia
    I should have added that re 1911 census, the male( who actually married again Dec. 1912), had several children, the eldest born under his name in Sept.1904. Perhaps the reason for a parting or maybe they had split before he met his new Lady. So many of lifes little mysteries abound. Not so different to today.
     
  7. Ma-dotcom

    Ma-dotcom A Bonza Little Digger!

    Offline
    Messages:
    7,101
    Likes Received:
    18,906
    Location:
    South Australia
    I've come back to this thread because it's here & saves time with some queries & answers. Same topic/ people- different query.

    Ancestry has released- it is reported- new divorce records up to 1914. I cannot find either party listed. Can there be an honest reason for this?
    Would divorce records be available elsewhere - TNA- which were not available to Ancestry?

    Or as was mentioned earlier--did they do a 'poor man's divorce'. Possibly the 7 year rule?

    I haven't found him positively as yet at any known addresses on Electoral lists & they wouldn't help in early years as wives were not mentioned.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice