+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Newcomer to Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    7
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default 1903 divorce papers

    Hello, Can anyone help? I have order and received my Great Great Grandmothers divorce papers. Her first husband Wilfred Nicholos Reynolds was divorcing my Great Great Grandmother (Rachel Reynolds) for adultery (with John Thomas who she later married).

    Wilfred Nicholos Reynolds and Rachel (maiden name James) married in March 1899 in Cardiff. At the time of the marriage they had a 9 month old girl Florence Sylvia Reynolds (born in June 1898). She was also 3 months pregnant with her 2nd child (Frank Reginald Reynolds born Sept 1899). They also had a 3rd child Rachel Clarrisa Reynolds born June 1902 but later died in March 1904 in Gloucester (after the divorce Rachel Clarrisa went to live with Wilfred in Gloucester).

    It states in the divorce papers that Rachel Reynolds committed adultery on many occasions. It also states that Wilfred left for Egypt in 1901 to 1903 leaving his wife and children at home. When he had returned he had discovered that Rachel was co-habiting with John Thomas and neighbours stated that Rachel had given birth to a child (the child of John Thomas). There is a paragraph in the divorce papers which I am looking for help with:

    "That after the said marriage your petitioner lived and cohabited with his said wife. There has been issue of the said marriage two children to wit 1) Frank Reginald aged 4 years, 2) Rachel Clarissa aged 1 years".

    The word "issue" in this paragraph is ringing alarm bells. Is Wilfred questioning if the 2 children mentioned in the paragraph is his Biological children? Is that why there is no mention of Florence Sylvia Reynolds? Does he have doubts that he is not the true father of Frank and Rachel if not why isn't Florence Sylvia mentioned in the divorce papers?

    There is no mention in the divorce papers of the name of the child that Rachel gave birth to. There is also no mention of this child in the 1911 census. Does this indicate that the child had died at birth?

    Any help would be much appreciated

    Rhian

  2. #2
    Brick wall demolition expert!
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,532
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 58 Times in 54 Posts

    Default

    The quoted paragraph is only dealing with children born to the couple "of the marriage". Florence Sylvia was born prior to the marriage so is not a child "of the marriage".

    The child born to Rachel Reynolds & John Thomas may have died or been adopted. The child certainly wasn't in the house or the neighbours wouldn't have had to tell Wilfred Reynolds that his wife had given birth to a child in his absence.

  3. #3
    Brick wall demolition expert!
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,532
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 58 Times in 54 Posts

    Default

    In what district was Rachel Reynolds living between 1901 & 1903? I imagine the child who "disappeared" would have the surname Reynolds at birth. May be worth looking at & comparing births & deaths as her children seemed to have very distinctive names.

  4. #4
    Reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    13,416
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,182 Times in 1,086 Posts

    Default

    "That after the said marriage your petitioner lived and cohabited with his said wife. There has been issue of the said marriage two children to wit 1) Frank Reginald aged 4 years, 2) Rachel Clarissa aged 1 years".
    It's just stated as a fact with no suggestion of any dispute. Is it the word "issue" (meaning someone's children) that's confused the er, um, er, issue. Sorry .

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Select a file: