1930s divorce

[Sunpat]

I believe my great uncle, 'Jim' Pearce, divorced his first wife, Kathleen/Catherine nee Melrose in the 1930s (he remarried in 1948).
The couple emigrated from the UK in the 1920s and met and married in Canada but in 1930/31, while both were resident in the UK (they had returned for a holiday) they separated and he returned to Canada where he lived for a further 16 years.
I know that Kathleen returned from Canada to live in the Glasgow area and my great uncle, in July 1930, was living in Churchill, Oxfordshire, where his parents and brother still lived (his father died in March 1931).
I originally had thought that the divorce must have happened in Canada and have been unable to find any information online from Canadian sources but finding out that both were living in the UK in the early 1930s now leads me to consider a possible UK divorce.
Can anyone advise on how I might find information about their divorce with it's Canadian, Glasgow and Oxfordshire elements?
Sunpat

[SBSFamilyhistory]

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/?source=home

I have checked for their divorce on here but have been unable to find aything.

Perhaps the divorce took place in Canada rather than here.

What does his status show on his marriage certifiacate for 1948.

Could his ex-wife have died by then?

Also sorry to suggest this but you have to consider that they may not have been legally divorced at all.

[Sunpat]

Thank you SBS for your help with the National Archives.
I had considered the possibility that they did not divorce - Kathleen died some 50 years later as Mrs Pearce so she did not remarry.
I will try to find out more details of his second marriage - when he had returned, permanently, to the UK.
Any advice is very welcome.
Sunpat

[SBSFamilyhistory]

Hi

Do you know what his proper name was.. I take it that he was James.

Where did he live and what was his wifes name?

Sue

[Peter Goodey]

For a divorce in England and Wales see here -
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/RdLeaflet.asp?sLeafletID=53

See in particular para 1: the definitive answer can be only obtained by contacting the Principal Registry of the Family Division.

Also para 3: there is a chance that case papers may have survived. They are not indexed by name in the Catalogue - you or someone would need to visit the National Archives to search.

[Sunpat]

Thank you SBS and Peter
My great uncle, although known by all the family as Jim, was Albert James - so this may be why the divorce information has not yet been found. His second wife's name was Anne/Annie Woodward and at the time of their marriage the couple lived in Oxfordshire.
Peter regarding "They are not indexed by name in the Catalogue - you or someone would need to visit the National Archives to search." I have no possibility of getting to the National Archives so I reckon that avenue is closed and the subject of the divorce may remain a mystery.
A relative tells me that the certificate for his second marriage states that he is divorced, formerly married to Kathleen Melrose sadly, though, no divorce papers are with the documents that my relative has but, I wonder, if the mention of his status as 'divorced' would mean that he would have shown proof of that at the time?
Sunpat

[Peter Goodey]

Peter regarding "They are not indexed by name in the Catalogue - you or someone would need to visit the National Archives to search." I have no possibility of getting to the National Archives so I reckon that avenue is closed and the subject of the divorce may remain a mystery.

I assumed that you would probably get someone to do it for you.

BUT note what I said -

1. If there was a divorce in England & Wales, the Principal Registry of the Family Division will know about it. That is definite.

2. If there was a divorce in England & Wales, there is a chance (somewhat less than 100%) that case papers survive at the National Archives.

[SBSFamilyhistory]

If she went to live in Scotland the divorce could have occured there, but it also less likely it could have occured in Canada.


Sue

[Sunpat]

I greatly appreciate your help, Peter.
I am surprised that information on the divorce is not with his other documents eg. his Will, second marriage and birth certificates - my relative searched through all she had belonging to him but, no joy.
With reference to the second marriage - can I assume that proof of his previous divorce was presented as a necessary legal requirement? I am told by a family member that when they remarried, also in the 1940s, that documentary proof of their previous divorce was required.
All your advice is very welcome and my next step must be the Principal Registry of the Family Division.

Sorry Sue, I just noticed you comments.
Catherine/Kathleen Melrose died in 1981(in Glasgow) still using the surname 'Pearce' and, curiously, her death certificate has her status as 'married'.
I do not know if she was aware that Albert James had married again as there had been no contact between them for many years - he had died in 1978 never having really known his daughter who herself died in 1998.
Sunpat

[smj7290]

Proof of divorce wasn't necessary - a husband who had disappeared and been gone for seven years could be classed as 'dead' and therefore the wife was free to remarry. For this, a death certificate wasn't necessary, so therefore proof of divorce wasn't either.
NOTE: People gave proof of divorce if they felt it was necessary, but many thought not to as it was such a stigma, especially for women of that era.

You must be aware that divorce carried a stigma for women especially, so it could be she didn't want a divorce. Another possibility is they were divorced but to avoid the stigma she continued on to say she was married. This is a likely theory.

I have close ties with the Principal Registry of the Family Division - if you like I could have a little search for you. I'm known to them as an LMA Archivist.

[Tederator]

Hi, reading through this thread brought to mind the year 1895 or a bit later, my great grandmother left my great grandfather and went to live with another man, a child was born of this relationship. Although I have done a bit of research no record of a divorce has been found, I did read somewhere that if a woman or man wanted to go with another spouse that they could do so, possibly no bigamy laws in those days. Searching throuigh my Grandfather's army records I notice he gives the name of his mother with the surname of her second spouse? very strange, if there was somewhere I could find divorce records of those days I would be very interested. As a matter of fact my great grandmother died 1908 and my great grandfather died in the workhouse at Fulhma in 1912. Just a few observations of my own after reading this thread. All this was in London UK of course:oops:
Tederator.

[christanel]

I found this very interesting and in depth review by Dr Tanya Evans, of Living in Sin: Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England by Ginger Frost
http://www.
history.ac.uk/reviews/review/830

Divorce was expensive and mostly beyond the members of the working class so 'living in sin' was the only option for some.

Here (http://www.pbs.plymouth.ac.uk/plr/vol4/Cox,%20David%20-%20Trying%20to%20get%20a%20good%20one.pdf) is another interesting article on the subject.

The National Archives holds divorce records 1858 to 1937 which can be downloaded. See their research guide Here (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/divorces/)

Any person could, and still can, adopt any name they like as long as it wasn't for criminal purposes. I didn't have to be done through official government channels although some do choose that route.

Christina

[Tederator]

I found this very interesting and in depth review by Dr Tanya Evans, of Living in Sin: Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England by Ginger Frost
http://www.
history.ac.uk/reviews/review/830

Divorce was expensive and mostly beyond the members of the working class so 'living in sin' was the only option for some.

Here (http://www.pbs.plymouth.ac.uk/plr/vol4/Cox,%20David%20-%20Trying%20to%20get%20a%20good%20one.pdf) is another interesting article on the subject.

The National Archives holds divorce records 1858 to 1937 which can be downloaded. See their research guide Here (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/divorces/)

Any person could, and still can, adopt any name they like as long as it wasn't for criminal purposes. I didn't have to be done through official government channels although some do choose that route.

Christina

I think that is what my great grandmother did lived without divorce, as you say it was too expensive. regarding name changes my grandfather dropped his cultural surname and used his given names only, I only found this out whilst I was researching my family history, needless to say I changed my surname back to my cultural surname, legally through the BMD system. that was about seven years ago.
Tederator.

[Peter Goodey]

Proof of divorce wasn't necessary

Proof certainly has to be produced today but I don't know exactly what regulations applied when.

We must remember that back in the 1930s and 40s there was still the concept of guilt and innocence in a divorce. Proving that one was the innocent party in a divorce by producing a copy of the decree might have been an issue if the second marriage was to be conducted in church.

PS I realise now that this is an ancient thread that has been resurrected for some reason. The original questioner hasn't logged in for many years and I don't suppose we'll get an update.

[geneius]

A bit of history and background

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimonial_Causes_Act_1937

My late mother married a GI in 1944 ( no children ofr the union) yet married my father in 1948, neither the GI's family nor I have found any record of a divorce.

I asked my father about the paperwork presented when he & mother married and he said none was asked for.......he was more worried about the changes in ID as late as 1999 in case the pension people asked for evidence of a divorce.....

Ironically the GI & my late mother died within weeks of one another, it was only after their death, his name appeared on ancestry and I made contact with the family, so that begs the question what is our relationship of their father & my mother if the parties were not divorced ?

[pwholt]

A Superintendant Registrar explained to me why they needed to have a copy of the divorce decree. A Portuguese man applied to marry; because he was a foreign national, they asked for his decree, which he gave. Upon getting it translated from the Portuguese, it proved to be a receipt for a washing machine! So, was he free to marry or not? pwholt

[Wilkes_ml]

From the TNA website research guide http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/divorces/

"The survival rate of divorce case files is:

1858-1927: almost 100%
1928-1937: 80%
After 1937 : less than 0.2%" Which may be why nothing is coming up on the TNA search

Which is a shame as my grandparents were both divorcees when they had been married around 1945.

According to an article in a recent issue of WDYTYA magazine, the wording on a subsequent marriage implies who was the party who obtained a divorce (i.e. petitioner) and who had been divorced (i.e. defendent). I'll have to dig out the article and post the actual wordings.

[geneius]

#16
So, was he free to marry or not?

Same question I ask myself about my late mother who would NOT discuss this!