Page 1 of 1

Divorced 1886

Posted: 15 Apr 2017 06:46
by miffywebb
Hi everyone, getting back to updating Fh after almost 10 years away! Lots of new records available now.
I have a divorce begun in 1886, decri nici finally granted in 1888. However this is then rescinded and the decri absolute is never granted as the pepition is dismissed 8 months later. I did try to attach an image but it was too big....not very good at this sort of thing.
My question is how common is this, surely it cost a lot of money at that time , has anyone else had a similar issue?

Re: Divorced 1886

Posted: 15 Apr 2017 21:18
by joanchop
I too have a divorce in my family tree, circa 1888/89. Quite sad really as the three daughters ended up in an orphanage. I too wondered about the cost and would be interested in any replies you might get.

Re: Divorced 1886

Posted: 16 Apr 2017 09:30
by Jane
Not an answer, but I was googling Victorian divorce and found this article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ation.html

The content is more interesting than the title suggests.

Re: Divorced 1886

Posted: 16 Apr 2017 09:36
by tatewise
I ran a Google search for divorce cost in 1800s England that gave a lot of interesting links such as :-
https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Divorc ... _and_Wales Divorce Act 1857 mentions cost & poor people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimoni ... s_Act_1857
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help ... -research/
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=416707.0 says cost between £120 & £800 but no evidence.

Re: Divorced 1886

Posted: 16 Apr 2017 13:24
by SunnyLady
Rebecca Probert has written on this... have a rootle on Amazon or local library. She I think is a law lecturer, but writes for the rest of us when comes to Family history (sorry tried to cut and paste a link but iPad won't play!). Her latest book was reviewed favourably on LostCousins a bit ago.

Re: Divorced 1886

Posted: 16 Apr 2017 14:02
by tatewise

Re: Divorced 1886

Posted: 16 Apr 2017 15:03
by SunnyLady
Thank you Mike... the last one is what I couldn't paste the link in for.

Re: Divorced 1886

Posted: 16 Apr 2017 16:30
by ColeValleyGirl
Her Marriage Law for Genealogy is excellent; I've just ordered the Divorced, Bigamist, Bereaved one and am looking forward to receiving it early in the week.

Re: Divorced 1886

Posted: 16 Apr 2017 18:29
by brianlummis
Although the natural place to look for books is Amazon, I tend to go to Wordery as they offer free postage worldwide and the price is usually lower than Amazon . So for the two books mentioned above, have a look at
https://tinyurl.com/kgggzoy
and
https://tinyurl.com/ltmd4tp

I have no connection with Wordery and there is no affiliate code in the link.

Brian

Re: Divorced 1886

Posted: 17 Apr 2017 07:55
by miffywebb
Thank you for your help, all very interesting. I wonder if divorces are ever refused today? I shall be ordering the books, hopefully from the library.

Re: Divorced 1886

Posted: 17 Apr 2017 08:26
by ColeValleyGirl
There has been a recent case of a divorce being refused : https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... se-divorce

Re: Divorced 1886

Posted: 17 Apr 2017 20:53
by miffywebb
What nest of worms I have found! Divorce in 3 consecutive generations of the same family between 1870s and 1890s a fascinating piece of social history

Re: Divorced 1886

Posted: 21 Apr 2017 12:35
by SunnyLady
Just this morning got the Divorced, Bigamist, Bereaved book... worth every (2nd hand) penny as answered my general question of rules about re marriage in Church of divorced person... the finer detail may only ever be known to the people who got married (the divorced wife who describes herself as a widow, to new husband) and why they chose who performed it.

It is fascinating... so whilst we look at the documents, we also think of some of the social/community consequences, and the different attitude to divorced men/women too. Our 21st century views so very different to those of 19th and a lot of 20th century. In my 1882 divorce, the marriage had taken place before the Married Women's Property Act and that had an effect as husband would have controlled her property (act not retrospective as far as rights it granted to women.. limited but....) and I suspect wife took action to regain her control of that property. Yet to read Bigamy section...so may find out more but work calls darn it!