Well, I found the papers, Merry.
He was 62, she was 22 when they married.
I've taken photos of the docs, so if I can dowload them, I'll email them.
Crux is: she accused him - no proof (interestingly she swore that she was not in collusion with him to bring about a divorce)
He accused her - no proof.
Dates, names etc were demanded, but apparently not forthcoming on either side, so the divorce seems not to have gone ahead.
He was 62, she was 22 when they married.
I've taken photos of the docs, so if I can dowload them, I'll email them.
Crux is: she accused him - no proof (interestingly she swore that she was not in collusion with him to bring about a divorce)
He accused her - no proof.
Dates, names etc were demanded, but apparently not forthcoming on either side, so the divorce seems not to have gone ahead.
Comment