Genealogy Chat

i'm looking for a possible divorce between 1821-1824. Does anyone know what the procedure was and if any records exist? Also, if one partner remarried would their marital status return to Batchelor or Spinster on the subsequent marriage record?

Divorce was very hard to get in those days, normally only the rich could afford to get divorced, what often happened was people went their own way and sometimes remarried bigamously. Shirley

Divorce then? Were both parties Very rich? National Archives may have the records but onlythey can check. What goes on a wedding certificate is what people say. Not likely to lie in their own parish but ...... Clive PS quite a few cases of bigamy around - these can be checked on - tried at quarter sessions.

thanks for the replies. I dont think they were exactly poor. The husband a few years later became a very successful business man regards shelly

Divorce was very rare and expensive, here is a guide to divorce records before 1858 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/RdLeaflet.asp?sLeafletID=260&j=1

Pre 1857, divorce required an Act of Parliament, for each divorce. Horrendously expensive, so most people just called it a day and went on to marry someone else bigamously. OC

but wasnt bigamy illegal, even back then? I would have thought that the husband in question would have been very worried indeed about being found out and his ex-wife claiming entitlement to his money, especially as they had a son shelly

Shelly Oh yes, it was illegal, but loads of people seem to have got away with it. A few were sent to prison, but this was usually when someone had complained, or when the bigamy was done purely for financial gain. If a divorce DID take place, then a subsequent marriage cert should read 'previous marriage dissolved'. But many people were ashamed of being divorced (it was a social disgrace) and lied, saying they were single. If you have evidence that the first wife kept the children of the marriage then it is extremely unlikely that a divorce took place, because custody was ALWAYS awarded to the man, except in extremely rare circumstances, and even then, custody would be awarded to the wife's closest male relative - her father or brother, for instance. OC OC

Thanks O C. Because of the dates, I'm not sure who had custody of the son.The son was born in 1821 and the father remarried in 1824. this is my dilemma: The ex-wife died in 1849, and the son was the informant. The death certificate gives the name of the husband, but says 'widow of' Looking at the evidence i've gathered so far, it would be far too coincidental that there would have been two persons with the same not very common name, occupation, place of birth and area of residence. A divorce seemed to be the only feasible explanation. shelly

Shelly... One of my lot was divorced in 1845 in England. I found it in the Times Digital Archives. I just put the person's name in and it came up. If it's a common name you may have to add some dates or something to narrow the search. I didn't realize it was so expensive.

One of mine divorced in 1846 and I found the reference/details on the National Archives site Sheila

There is a remote possibility that the marriage was annulled. This would have been a Church procedure and in my experience, it is very difficult to track down, unless you are really lucky. I have one marriage cert, where the bride is described as 'The wife of John Bloggs, sent beyond the seas for life'. She married by licence, which was issued by the Archbishop, on the grounds that John Bloggs could not fulfil his marriage vows, and that on those grounds, John Bloggs having been absent for more than seven years, he (the Archbishop) issued an annulment of the marriage. However, if your man is saying he is a bachelor, then you don't know on what grounds he got rid of his first wife! But it won't hurt to look for a divorce. OC

thank you all again for your replies regards shelly