Author Topic: COMPLETED  (Read 2681 times)

Offline Kasby

  • -
  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
COMPLETED
« on: Friday 30 June 06 04:51 BST (UK) »
.

Offline Valda

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,160
    • View Profile
Re: Divorce 1896 - 1902
« Reply #1 on: Friday 30 June 06 06:53 BST (UK) »
Divorce in the period you are interested in was rare because it was so expensive. There was no legal aid available until after the First World War so it was prohibitively expensive for most working people. Though men could get divorced on the grounds of adultery alone, women needed more, so an abusive husband would not be enough reason for a woman to divorce a husband and anyway proving abuse would also be difficult. A woman would need to prove adultery and something else - desertion being the easiest.
Most people when such a marriage broke down had to be practical if they wanted a new relationship. As divorce was beyond their reach they lived with their new partner as man or wife or in some cases they bigamously married (suprisingly common particularly where all parties were in agreement after the breakdown of the marriage or if one moved away and lived anonymously in a large city).
So the first thing to consider might be that a marriage didn't take place between Elizabeth Hancox and Frederick Jefferies, or it did quietly many years later when Elizabeth was able to marry because of the death of her first husband, or because the divorce laws had eased after the First World War (though they might not chose to divorce then because that would be to admit publically they were not married in the first place and their children were illegitimate - children born before a marriage could only be legitimised by a subsequent marriage if they were born after the law which allowed this in 1926).
I have one such case where the couple were living together as a married couple in the 1890s did not lmarry until 1924.
The fact that Elizabeth Hancox' s children's birth certificates say her name was Hancox - that should be her maiden name. If she had another name since her maiden name then you would expect it to read
Elizabeth Jefferies late ----------- formerly Hancox. The formerly name being her maiden name.
If you are still convinced there was a divorce The National Archives holds all the divorce records for this period and you will find their research guide here

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/researchguidesindex.asp

scroll down to Divorce Records after 1858.

Have you found the couple on the 1901 census? Do you know anything else about Elizabeth that might allow a search for her on the 1891 census?

Regards

Valda
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Kasby

  • -
  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
COMPLETED
« Reply #2 on: Friday 30 June 06 09:01 BST (UK) »
.

Offline jorose

  • Global Moderator
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 9,746
    • View Profile
Re: Divorce 1896 - 1902
« Reply #3 on: Friday 30 June 06 17:28 BST (UK) »
I'd suggest trying to find the third marriage, and seeing what her father's name is.

http://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/rectype/vital/freebmd/bmd.aspx to search the marriage indexes (I guess search for the husband first as you don't know what name she'll be under).

Another thought is that she was married before but the name of the first husband wasn't Hanco(ck/x).  I have people who have been previously married but only mentioned their maiden name on the birth certificates; makes it dammably difficult to find marriages.
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Offline Kasby

  • -
  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
.
« Reply #4 on: Saturday 01 July 06 04:07 BST (UK) »
,

Offline Valda

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,160
    • View Profile
Re: Divorce 1896 - 1902
« Reply #5 on: Saturday 01 July 06 08:47 BST (UK) »
There is a Hancox/Stokes marriage in Basford

Marriages Dec 1891
Hancox  Elizabeth     Basford  7b 231   
Stokes  John Henry     Basford  7b 231 

The other two names in the index are married on the 1901 census
(Bramley  Hubert    Basford  7b 231
Terry  Theriza     Basford  7b 231) 

Basford registration district covers the Papplewick area

I'm not saying this a correct marriage for Elizabeth (it could be a complete red herring), but if Hancox was Elizabeth's maiden name and she married a Mr. Stokes, but never bigamously married Frederick Jefferies, then it would have been possible that she chose to marry in the married surname of Stokes to Frank Killingley in 1936. If she had been known by the surname Jefferies for over 30 years you might have expected, since you can legally be known by any surname, that she would have choosen to marry in the name Jefferies. However, if she thought the marriage would only be legal if she married as Elizabeth Stokes then she might have married in her former legally married surname.

Regards

Valda
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Kasby

  • -
  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Divorce 1896 - 1902
« Reply #6 on: Saturday 01 July 06 09:46 BST (UK) »
,

Offline Valda

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,160
    • View Profile
Re: Divorce 1896 - 1902
« Reply #7 on: Saturday 01 July 06 09:56 BST (UK) »
People who marry much younger spouses have a tendency to adjust their ages in consequence.

Regards

Valda

Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk