Divorced Males mid 1900's

[kerrie]

When men remarried did they have to have the first wife's permission to do so? Did they have to prove that they were divorced? Would this show on the new marriage certificate? Would it give any information of the first wife? The time period would be around 1910 - 1933. Many thanks Kerrie

[Peter Goodey]

There was effectively no divorce at all before the 1920s - except for the very well-to-do. For the period you mention, there is a good chance that the papers have survived - if indeed there was a divorce.

Why not tell us the specific circumstances and someone will probably be able to offer some relevant advice?

[kerrie]

I am not really sure of the circumstances and that was why I asked. I have a marriage and have been told it was a second marriage and that there was a child born in the first marriage but I have not been able to locate either the first marriage and have a lot of possibilities for the child. I was thinking, if there was a divorce that maybe the first wife's information might be on the second marriage, a bit like when a male died the wife married again there was reference to her first marriage. Mind you I have not been able to find reference to the man's birth yet even though I have the date and he appears on the census for 1901.

[Cornish Maid]

Kerrie

When someone marries they are asked if they have been married before. They either say yes or no! And if they say no then they will not be asked for any details of a first marriage that the Registrar knows nothing about (if you see what I mean)
Whether they say yes or no, details of a former spouse will not be on the new marriage cert - why should they be? The first marriage is over and done with and nothing to do with the second or subsequent marriage.
The only time any hint of a previous marriage appears is June Bloggs late Smith formerly Jones - previous marriage dissolved, ( or widow.)

For a man it would be "previous marriage dissolved"

And as for needing permission of former spouse to remarry - no, again, that marriage is over and done with.

Good luck in your searches.

Cornish Maid

[kerrie]

Just to make myself clear the marriage certificate would read previous marriage disolved and no mention of the previous wife's name?

In Australia the law is different.

Thanks for your reply.

Kerrie

[Cornish Maid]

Kerrie


Sorry, I didnt realise you werent au fait with English Law. Yes, you are right, the only clue would be "previous marriage dissolved" for a man remarrying, but for a female it would say "previous marriage dissolved" and give a name.

So, for instance, John Smith and Mary White marry. She becomes Mrs Smith. They divorce and each remarries.

John Smith will have "previous marriage dissolved" in the status column of his new certificate. Mrs Mary Smith, nee White will have "previous marriage dissolved" in Status column, in name column she will appear as Mary Smith formerly White.

Hope this explains - and of course, that information does depend on whether or not they told the truth to the Registrar!

Cornish Maid

[kerrie]

Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. So it means that Australian law is very similar. Kerrie

[Lindad]

I've just received a 1923 marriage certificate for a man previously divorced in 1919.

The groom was described 'divorced husband of Hilda Mary Hungerford, formerly Clarke'.

So you could find that the later marriage certificate will tell you all you want to know...

[Peter Goodey]

"The groom was described 'divorced husband of Hilda Mary Hungerford, formerly Clarke'."


Ah. Now that's what I would have vaguely expected but wasn't really sure enough to venture an opinion.

However a quick Google confirms that this is indeed the wording used from 1858 to 1952. It was only from 1952 that the wording was changed to "Previous marriage dissolved" with no mention of the previous spouse's name.

[Cornish Maid]

Everyone

My deepest apologies for my misleading misinformation! (Opens mouth, puts large foot in it...)

I had made the (fatal!) assumption that as it is now is how it was then.

Apologies again

Cornish Maid

[Guy Etchells]

Kerrie


Sorry, I didnt realise you werent au fait with English Law. Yes, you are right, the only clue would be "previous marriage dissolved" for a man remarrying, but for a female it would say "previous marriage dissolved" and give a name.

So, for instance, John Smith and Mary White marry. She becomes Mrs Smith. They divorce and each remarries.

John Smith will have "previous marriage dissolved" in the status column of his new certificate. Mrs Mary Smith, nee White will have "previous marriage dissolved" in Status column, in name column she will appear as Mary Smith formerly White.

Hope this explains - and of course, that information does depend on whether or not they told the truth to the Registrar!

Cornish Maid


Sometimes the parties were explicit in telling the truth. How about this for a Marriage Register entry -

Bottesford
27 July, 1846, (groom) John ASSKEW, 63, Widower, Labourer, Easthorpe, (father) William ASSKEW, Labourer, (bride) Mary, GILDEN, of full age, Husband Transported For Life, Easthorpe, (father) Don't Know, (witnesses) Solomon BROWETT, Ann HAIN.

Cheers
Guy

[Cornish Maid]

Guy


That is a very interesting avenue you have opened up..what was going on here?
Can we assume then, that a marriage was automatically dissolved if a husband (or wife, even) was transported for life? No legal divorce necessary?

The ramifications of this are endless and VERY interesting! Anyone care to elaborate?

Cornish Maid

[Peter Goodey]

Seven years, I seem to recall. Same period as assumption of death. I don't think it specifically applied to transportation - seven years abroad on a voluntary basis would count as well. The same applied to the convict.

[Procat]

From the Complete English Lawyer by John Gifford 1820:

Bigamy

By statute I Jac. I c. II if any person, being married, do afterwards marry again, the former husband or wife being alive, it is felony, but within the benefit of clergy. The first wife, in this case shall not be admitted as a witness against her husband, because she is the true wife; but the second may, for she is no wife at all; and so, vice versa, of a second husband.

This act makes an exception to five cases, in which such second marriage is not felony; though in the first three it is void, and the parties are subject to the censures and punishment of the ecclesiastical courts. 1. Where either party hath been continually abroad for seven years, whether the party in England hath notice of the other's being living or not. 2. Where either of the parties hath been absent from the other seven years within this kingdom, and the remaining party hath had no knowledge of the other's being alive within that time.

[Procat]

From the Complete English Lawyer - Part Two:

3. Where there is a divorce (or separation a mensa et thoro) by sentence in the ecclesiastical courts. 4. Where the first marriage is declared absolutely void by any such sentence, and the parties loosed a vinculo. Or, 5. Where either of the parties was under the age of consent at the time of the first marriage; for, in such case, the first marriage was voidable by the disagreement of either party, which the second marriage very clearly amounts to.

By the 35 Geo. III. c 67. persons convicted of bigamy are rendered subject to the same punishment as those who are convicted of grand or petit larceny. Before this statute they were liable to be burnt in the hand, and imprisoned for any time not exceeding one year; and by 16 Geo. III. c. 74. the burning in the hand may be changed into a fine, or into a public or private whipping, not more than three times. The effect of this statute is, that burning in the hand may be changed into transportation for seven years, and the imprisonment, as for petit larceny, may be unlimited.

[Cornish Maid]

Procat:


Thankyou for that informative, if slightly grisly, post!

As they say - you live and learn! Any idea where/ or how this was established - did the person wishing to remarry under these circumstances need to go to court, or was it done "on the nod" by an understanding registrar or Vicar?

Cornish Maid

[Procat]

Hi Cornish Maid,

I am afraid I have no further information - I am not even sure I fully understand the information from the Complete English Lawyer.

But the law was designed to keep the common folk from understanding it after all. :)

[Guy Etchells]

The relevevant part is the section showing the exceptions -
This act makes an exception to five cases, in which such second marriage is not felony; though in the first three it is void, and the parties are subject to the censures and punishment of the ecclesiastical courts. 1. Where either party hath been continually abroad for seven years, whether the party in England hath notice of the other's being living or not. 2. Where either of the parties hath been absent from the other seven years within this kingdom, and the remaining party hath had no knowledge of the other's being alive within that time.

Exception allows for a second marriage (without it being a felony) if one partner is overseas for a period of seven years. In this case it does not matter whether the person is known to be alive or not.

It would in most cases be common knowledge in the locality if someones husband had been transported for life, as until recently british justice was based upon knowledge unlike today where criminals identities are protected.
Cheers
Guy

[Procat]

Hi Guy,

I got most of that bit but what throws me is:

"though in the first three it is void, and the parties are subject to the censures and punishment of the ecclesiastical courts".

Does that mean the "Law" will not concern itself but the "Church" may be kicking the front door down to exact retribution of some kind because someone has been "living in sin" even though apart for seven years?

[ruthrrr]

Exception allows for a second marriage (without it being a felony) if one partner is overseas for a period of seven years. In this case it does not matter whether the person is known to be alive or not.
Guy

So as my Great Grandfather did a runner shortly after the birth of his son in 1907, my Great Grandmother could remarry in 1921 and describe herself as widowed? I had been told that she had to go to court to get him declared dead, but perhaps she didn't as the exception allows for her second marriage... have I got this right?

Ruth

[Guy Etchells]

Yes.
The civil law would not punish you for remarrying in such circumstances but the church may require a penance, or they may even require the ultimate sacrifice - to live with one's partner again as man and wife.
Cheers
Guy

[Guy Etchells]

No, she would not be able to properly describe herself as widowed but seperated, if he went overseas she could legally marry after 7 years seperation, if he stayed in this country she could legally marry after not having heard of his being alive for seven years.

It is possible to have somone declared dead by the courts after seven years, this is mostly done for inheritence rather than marriage.
There is no requirement for such a declaration for marriage.
If the assumed dead person turns up the marriage is then void with all that that entails.
Cheers
Guy

[Procat]

Yes.
The civil law would not punish you for remarrying in such circumstances but the church may require a penance, or they may even require the ultimate sacrifice - to live with one's partner again as man and wife.
Cheers
Guy

Thanks Guy,

Cheerful thought.

[kumben]

Try to look for your divorces in the National Archives J77. Once you have it up put in the name(s) of the parties and see what comes up. That is how I found the divorce of my granny.