Divorce Records 1858-1914 - ancestry

[kiterunner]

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=2465
They are calling them "UK Civil Divorce Records" but I suspect it is just England and Wales - anyone know whether this is the case?

There is a similar database on findmypast but you may find people listed on one and not on the other (Apparently ancestry's database is from J77 at TNA and findmypast's from J78).

Edit - date range was 1858-1911 when this thread was originally posted, but now goes up to 1914.

[Chris in Sussex]

FMP only has the index (I think)....Ancestry has the papers, so all the juicy stories:eek:

Although 'mine' couldn't afford official divorces I have been having a look at some of the cases....They make interesting reading.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Kite

Chris

[Merry]

Oooh, I've just been reading the papers regarding "my" 1903 Horniman "divorce" (apparently there was never a decree absolute).

I thought I was reading about Mr H doing the gentlemanly thing, having allowed himself to be seen entering various hotels on specific dates to commit adultery with a woman named Wentworth about three months before the divorce petition......but when I got to the papers for him, he accuses his wife of adultery with three different men (one of whom she eventually married once Mr H had died) and two of those at their family home! I didn't think that was what a gentleman was supposed to do? lol Maybe he eventually thought twice about the divorce, as I'm sure all the details would have ended up in the newspaper had it gone through, as Mr H was an MP with a wife 40 years his junior!

Thanks for the link, Kate - I wonder who else I can find?

[Mary from Italy]

Ooh, thanks, Kate, off to have a look.

[maggie_4_7]

Oooh thank you :)

[ElizabethHerts]

Found a few in there. One was pages long - mainly because they kept repeating the same pages again and again!

[Jill]

Just found one which names all their children and the month and year of birth which is useful as some were born in India and I hadn't even known the names of two of them.

[Kit]

Just found one for OH's husband. I had thought it was reasonably amicable as she was the executor and beneficiary of hubby's will when he died but her application for separation and divorce state he neglected her and physically abused her. Made me sad really.

[Janet]

I don't think you need take legalese as much of a faithful indicator of real life stories in all cases, Toni. Sometimes the lawyer has to write the language that matches the hurdles to be got over in order to satisfy the "letter of the law."

[Mary from Italy]

I don't really agree with that.

The grounds for divorce used to be adultery, desertion or cruelty (no-fault divorce wasn't introduced until fairly recently). I would say it was fairly unusual for somebody to invent stories of cruelty, because it would have to be proved.

If both parties wanted a divorce, the usual thing was for the husband to arrange to be seen by a private detective entering a hotel with some woman and leaving the next day.

If only one wanted the divorce, they would need to get the same kind of evidence of adultery, or apply on the ground of two years' desertion. I would guess that cruelty cases were a minority.

[Janet]

Oh dear, off to educate myself with Rebecca Probert's Marriage Law for Genealogists which has recently arrived on my doorstep.

[Mary from Italy]

What I said applies to English law - US (and even Scottish) law may be different.

[Phoenix]

In the early days at least, the judges weren't too impressed if the couple both wished to part and connived at events to bring about a divorce.

[Mary from Italy]

No: although many couples did collude to get a divorce, it wasn't allowed, and if it was found out after the decree nisi, the decree absolute wasn't granted.

[Kit]

I don't think you need take legalese as much of a faithful indicator of real life stories in all cases, Toni. Sometimes the lawyer has to write the language that matches the hurdles to be got over in order to satisfy the "letter of the law."

I'd like to think that but some of the things were quiet awful and excessive if you were just making something up.

In the early days at least, the judges weren't too impressed if the couple both wished to part and connived at events to bring about a divorce.

That explains the bit in the statements that said they didn't collude or connive together.

[Chris in Sussex]

I thought that in early divorces (until 19something) the husband could claim just for adultery but the wife would have to prove not only adultery but also that he had actually done something wrong:rolleyes: So adultury and cruelty and that would explain why cruelty features rather heavily in the records.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong:D

Chris

[Merry]

Divorce of a husband for adultery without additional grounds only became law in 1923 (Matrimonial Causes Act).

Before that (from 1858) women divorcing on the grounds of adultery not only had to prove their husbands had been unfaithful but also had to prove additional faults, which included cruelty, rape and incest.

So, as well as not being able to divorce your husband for adultery alone (as he could you), you could not divorce your husband for cruelty alone) I think, anyway!)

[Mary from Italy]

Ah, that's interesting, I didn't realise that.

[Merry]

I randomly entered some of my surnames into the search and turned up my 3xg-uncle divorcing his wife in 1884. I already knew he had emigrated to New Zealand leaving his "wife" behind and in his will he had stated he was single. Up to now I'd thought he was lying!

The funny bit is (after some delving), the co-respondent turns out to be the local registrar for marriages!

[Janet]

:d:d:d

[ElizabethHerts]

The funny bit is (after some delving), the co-respondent turns out to be the local registrar for marriages!

I hope it wasn't a Hatch from Portsea, Merry!

[Merry]

Nooooo......Some chap from Fishponds in Bristol. He was also the local sanitary inspector!

[kiterunner]

These have been updated - it looks as though the years 1912-1914 have been added as the date range is now 1858-1914. I will update the thread title accordingly.

Link to database:
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=2465