Pages: [1]

Author Topic: D.I.V.O.R.C.E.  (Read 1242 times)

Offline Hunter

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
D.I.V.O.R.C.E.
« on: Sunday 02 January 05 21:19 GMT (UK) »
Hi

I was wondering if it is likely for a working class couple to have divorced around 1880?

I would guess that it would have been expensive compared to their income.

If they didn't divorce I am probably looking for a widow or a bigamist!

I'm sure someone out there can advise me.

Thanks

Hunter ???
Atkinson, Hunter, Scanlon, Bell, Heptinstall, Evans, Hickin, Mawby, Chapman, Marples, Fay

Offline Kooly

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: D.I.V.O.R.C.E.
« Reply #1 on: Sunday 02 January 05 21:32 GMT (UK) »
Hi Hunter,

Couples who wanted to separate and did not have the means to resort to church or civil courts would often simply decide to go their different ways, occasionally marrying bigamously until the law caught up with them.

                       Kooly...
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchive.gov.uk

(Yorkshire) Briggs, Darbyshire, Green, Harrison, Moate, Smith, Leggott, Bradley.
(Staffordshire) Baker.
(Ireland) Bradley.

Offline Hunter

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: D.I.V.O.R.C.E.
« Reply #2 on: Sunday 02 January 05 21:41 GMT (UK) »
Thanks Kooly

I will send off for the marriage certificate for the second marriage, maybe that will indicate if the bride is claiming to be 'single'

Cheers
Hunter
Atkinson, Hunter, Scanlon, Bell, Heptinstall, Evans, Hickin, Mawby, Chapman, Marples, Fay

Offline Hackstaple

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,873
  • Family researcher
    • View Profile
Re: D.I.V.O.R.C.E.
« Reply #3 on: Sunday 02 January 05 22:36 GMT (UK) »
It was unheard of for working class people to be divorced at that time, although legally possible. Bigamy was very prevalent in the working class until after 1937 when divorce became cheaper and easier. I have a problem with this thread - if the "second marriage" is of the woman then surely she married under either her married name or her maiden name. If the latter is the case how would you know it to be the same person - was her name unique? Is there no death record for the "first" husband? If there were minor children with whom did they live thereafter? The censuses tell us all sorts of things to allow verification of who is who 8)
Southern or Southan [Hereford , Monmouthshire & Glos], Jenkins, Meredith and Morgan [Monmouthshire and Glos.], Murrill, Damary, Damry, Ray, Lawrence [all Middx. & London], Nethway from Kenn or Yatton. Also Riley and Lyons in South Africa and Riley from St. Helena.
Any census information included in this post is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Hunter

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: D.I.V.O.R.C.E.
« Reply #4 on: Monday 03 January 05 18:22 GMT (UK) »
Hi Hackstaple

I do have a reference for the second marriage which shows gggrandma has having married using her maiden name.  I also have a reference for the first marriage. 

I haven't found a death record for the first husband and as he has quite a common name I haven't pusued that line too much.

I will be sending for copies of the marriage certificates shortly.

In the meantime I have also checked the census and have followed her through from a child until she was living with her second husband, their children and her daughter from her first marriage.  If I don't have the same person then I have stumbled across alot of coincidences.

With a bit of luck and some perseverance it will all pay off and I might just have the one I'm looking for.

Thanks for your interest.

Hunter
Atkinson, Hunter, Scanlon, Bell, Heptinstall, Evans, Hickin, Mawby, Chapman, Marples, Fay
Pages: [1]