Divorce 19th Century

[Yardbird]

I have recently read many of the posts, including the knowledgeable replies and comments on the above subject. As I have an instance of bigamy in my tree I thought it would be interesting to members to read the following.

My G. Grandmother, Ann Lord, married James Butterworth in Bury on 30 May 1874, they had two children, Alice Ann and Elizabeth Ellen, both born prior to 1881.

On the 1881 census Ann is living as married, with her two children, but there is no mention of James, and I have not been able to find him anywhere on the 1881 census.

My grandmother Ada (later known as Edith) was born 10 Oct. 1883, no father is
named on the birth certificate, but she was given the Butterworth surname.

It would seem that James left Ann and went to live with Ann(ie) Ingham, who bore him four children between Oct 1882 and Mar 1889. No father is named on any of the birth certificates. All born in Bury.

Jame's wife Ann remarried 13 Jul. 1889, (calling herself widowed) i.e. after the birth of the fourth of Ann(ie) Ingham's children, by, I assume, James Butterworth.

Ann(ie) Ingham and James were married in Rochdale on 4 Oct.1890, (James described as bachelor) and were living as man and wife in Bury in the 1891 census, although all children were still called Ingham.

Ann(ie) and James moved to Burnley, where they had two more children.

I am currently reviewing copies of the local paper covering the above period, a long but interesting task, to see if I can find any mention of divorce or desertion or whatever.

A postscript to the above is that I have been unable to find the death of James, and only the marriages of three of his daughters, but none of his sons!

I know it is not necessary to find the death of James but I think it would draw a line under his life, especially as he gave his name to my Grandmother.

Hope whoever reads this finds it interesting and not too boring.

Any comments and or remarks would be welcome.

Peter McLaren

[RJ_Paton]

While divorce is a possibility I believe that the chances of it are extremely slim if not non-existant .

In the 19th century (and before) when a woman married she almost literally became the property of her husband and all possessions of hers became his property. This situation did not change until circa 1882 when the Married property Act came into being.

A woman could not divorce her husband on the grounds of adultery even with proof of it although a man could divorce his wife upon the same grounds. Upon such a divorce the children became the mans property and he could bar the woman from ever seeing her children again.

That said, the financial costs of such actions were extremely high and would not have been entered upon except under extreme pressure or where money was not a primary concern.

If a woman was unhappy with her situation there was, almost without exception, nothing she could do about it. Except in extremely rare cases, a woman could not obtain a divorce and, until 1891, if she ran away from an intolerable marriage the police could capture and return her, and her husband could imprison her. All this was sanctioned by church, law, custom, history, and approved of by society in general. Nor was it the result of ancient, outdated laws: the new (1857) divorce act restated the moral inequality. Mere adultery was not grounds for a woman to divorce a man; however, it was sufficient grounds for a man to divorce his wife.

from  http://members.lycos.co.uk/HastingsHistory/19/overview.htm

[RJ_Paton]

The following is an extract from a Times Online article

While providing for unhappy couples to obtain a divorce for a cost of about £100 (within reach only of the prosperous middle classes), the law continued to extract from women a higher emotional tariff for an intolerable marriage than it demanded of men. Husbands could sue for divorce on the ground of adultery. A wife must prove that her husband was guilty of an extra fault: bestiality, bigamy, cruelty, desertion, incest, rape or sodomy. A husband might claim damages against the adulterous third party; a wife might not. There was no consensual divorce.

The full article can be read at
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article1882253.ece

[cheshiremog]

As far as I know divorce was out of the question for the common people. My grandfather married in 1893 but his wife left him.  He never got divorced and set up home with another woman in 1911 who bore him 13 children.  Most of the children were given his 'common law' wife's maiden name up until about 1925/1926 - after that the children took my grandfather's surname even though he was still not married to their mother. I think the law changed in the mid 1920s where a man could choose to give a child his surname even if they were not married but prior to this - the child had to take the mother's maiden name.
Does anyone know any more about this law ?

[LizzieW]

My grandmother, born 1884, and her two brothers had their father's surname on their birth certificates, but no-one has been able to find a marriage between g.grandfather and g.grandmother.  She was supposed to be widowed, but there doesn't appear to be a death of her first husband prior to my gran being born.  So I'm not sure there was a law about children taking their mother's name if the parents weren't married.

Liz

[Valda]

Peter

the very fact that the 1889 and 1890 marriages give their statuses as widow and bachelor indicates strongly there was no divorce. The status should read 'divorced' (I have an 1888 marriage where this is the case).
It was not until after the First World War that legal aid was available and when divorce became attainable for the 'working classes'.

Cheshiremog

The law has always been that anyone can use any name they like. Still today you can change your name to whatever you like 'Screaming Lord Sutch' for instance, as long as you inform all the necessary authorities e.g. your bank, that this is the name you now wish to be known as.
There would therefore have been nothing in the past to stop illegitmate children choosing to use their father's surname instead of their mother's (some did some didn't), but they had no legal right to claim on their father's estate (though the mother could seek maintenance assistance from the man e.g. Bastardy Orders).

I think the law you mean is the Legitimacy Act of 1926. From 1927 onwards any children born before the subsequent marriage of their parents were made legitimate by that marriage. That meant such children had all the rights of their younger siblings who may have been born after their parents' marriage - in other words an equal right to inheritance. Illegitmate children whose parents did not subsequently marry remained without those rights and I think it was only in much more modern times - well after the Second World War (strengthened by the ability to check DNA that their rights were also guaranteed by the law).

Regards

Valda

[Yardbird]

Dear All,

Many thanks for all the replies and comments to my original post.

All of which I found most interesting and informative.

I also found the comment by Valda re name change most interesting. My G G Grandfather changed his name from Edward Henry McLaren sometime between 1867 and 1870 to Philip McConnell. I don't know why, I probably never will.

Yet his daughter, Elizabeth - my G Grandmother, kept the McLaren surname when she gave birth to my Grandfather (illegitimate), in 1880, otherwise I would have been a McConnell!

Peter McLaren

[LizzieW]

Yet his daughter, Elizabeth - my G Grandmother, kept the McLaren surname when she gave birth to my Grandfather (illegitimate), in 1880, otherwise I would have been a McConnell!

My 3 x g.grandmother kept her name too, otherwise my mother would have been a Tubb before marriage.  Funnily enough my OH calls me Tub, ironically as it happens because he is the tubby one not me.

Liz