Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Family TreesΒ  permalink

Heres a quandry about divorce in 19th Century

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Jowin1 (U1940449) on Wednesday, 21st September 2005

  Having checked all the census' and BMD's I see my G G Grandfather, George Gorringe married in 1870 and had, as I can, see only one child a James R b 1884. My GGG was on the 1871 census married to Margaret Jane. Margaret Jane was in the Durham workhouse in the 1891 census with James R (Son). Whilst at the same time George was married to Sarah Ann Douglas, no kids, in 1891 census and plenty of kids in the 1901 census. They married in 1890. Would he have been divorced when he married Sarah? In the 1901 census James R b 1884 and his uncle, my G Grandfather George b 1870 where together but marked as brothers and this is another area of questioning as George b 1870 was married to a Jane Ann Robertson in 1894 and by 1901 had 3 children. So why isn't she with the 2 men in Grimsby? Where would she have been? They had 3 more children after 1901.
  
  Any advises would be much appreciated.
  
  Thanks
  
  Jo

  Link to this forum: Heres a quandry about divorce in 19th Century

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Linda1111 (U1103093) ** on Wednesday, 21st September 2005

  Prior to 1857 divorce was only available by an act of parliament. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 enabled divorces to be heard through the London based Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes but the grounds for divorce were still extremely narrow and it was still an horrendously expensive business. It was not until the 1920's when a form of legal aid was made available for divorce that ordinary people (including one of my Grandmothers'!) were able to see divorce as a real option.
  
  You can find out more by searching 'divorce' on TNA site.
  
  It is very unlikely that a divorce took place. People separated and then conveniently 'forgot' they had a living spouse. Bigamy was usually the only option with the fervent hope that it would not be discovered because if it was, then it was a spot of porridge at HM's pleasure (as my husband's Great Grandfather discovered.)
  
  Sometimes the explanations lie with a death that is difficult to verify or confusion over similar names, places and dates of birth.
  
  Check and recheck your information and see whether or not two or more families might be confused. Look for death certificates etc. It is not unknown for John Smith to be married to Jane who dies and then he marries another Jane of a similar age from the same town.
  
  They don't make it easy, do they?

  Link to this forum: Heres a quandry about divorce in 19th Century

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by loftyowl (U1774904) on Thursday, 22nd September 2005

  Have you obtained a copy of the marriage certificate for George and Sarah Ann Douglas, thus proving that they had a civil service?
  One option could have been that they completed the various census returns stating that their condition was 'married' but in fact they may not have been. The use of the title would have removed any local stigma attached to their children being illegitimate.
  I have a g.g.g.g.grandfather who on the 1861C is 'married' to one lady, on the 1871C he is 'married' to another and on the 1881C he is 'married' to yet a third. The 1881C shows both wives no.2 and 3. I am able to obtain a marriage certificate for the first but not any subsequent 'marriage'. Questions relating to dissertion, adultery, bigamy spring to mind. My suggestion would be to check the documentation (signatures on marriage certificates) etc in the hope of sorting out the puzzle.

  Link to this forum: Heres a quandry about divorce in 19th Century

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Jowin1 (U1940449) on Thursday, 22nd September 2005

  I have found the details to obtain both marriage certificates. I also think I've the first wife's death 7 years after her husband remarried. But she has lost a few years as she was born in 1851 and was 20 in 1871, 38 in 1891 and 43 when she died in 1897. Could this be correct? There is also a gap of 14 years between her two children though I understand the mortality rate was pretty bad back then. Suppose I better obtain both birth certificates and both marraige certificates to compare details. As his first wife was in the workhouse in 1891, I suppose its feasible that he just forgot about her. Not a nice man though. Must be hereditery as my grandad ran off with my Nans sister when my mum was born. Nice.

  Link to this forum: Heres a quandry about divorce in 19th Century

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by loftyowl (U1774904) on Friday, 23rd September 2005

  Hi,
  The inaccuracy of ages across the different censuses is common and often the age at death doesn't tie in with the year of birth. Maybe this had to do with a lack of schooling or a lack of birth documentation, or simply that people forgot.
  
  The gap of 14 years could be due to infant mortality. Around the 1870/1880s, as you may have picked up from other messages on this site, there was a smallpox epidemic. I don't know if it covered the area in which you are searching, but the death records covering these dates are littered with details of children dying young. There were also a number of wars going on at this time and it may have been the the couple were seperated, as (depending on rank) wives do not travel with their enlisted husbands.
  
  I have always wondered about the going-ons in families when one of the matriarchs ends up spending their last days in a Workhouse. In your case, things may have been different as the couple had in effect 'divorced' and were not necessarily going to be prepared to look out for each other in latter life. I have a g.g.g.grandmother who ended up in a Workhouse, but her two sons were established with their own families in proximity to the Workhouse. I've no idea why this lady would not have ended up living with one of her sons. Who know's?
  
  Good luck with the certificates.

  Link to this forum: Heres a quandry about divorce in 19th Century

  Report message5

Back to top