Divorce question

[KiwiChris]

I am helping a friend with his family tree and we have an interesting puzzle.

His grandfather Hendrikus Klassen (Henry Klaassen) married his grandmother Kate Barrett, Hackney June 1910.
There was a child born in Amsterdam 1911, then several in England, 1913, 1914, 1916, 1918, 1920, 1922, then 2 more in Holland 1924 and 1926.

Strangely, Hendrikus Klassen married Lucy M Bendy, Brentford September 1913. He said he was a batchelor but his occupation, his father's name and his father's occupation were identical to the Henry who married Kate.

Henry and Kate were said to have divorced at some stage, and they then remarried in Holland in 1937, when they said they were unmarried since 1914 but had been living and registered as a married couple in Holland.

Lucy Bendy married in 1930 using Bendy as a surname, not Klassen.

I know this is a bit of a long story, but I am getting to the point.......

How long did it take to obtain a divorce at that time? Would it be a quicky divorce because of his possible bigamy? I am imagining that it was bigamy if he and Kate were unmarried since 1914 and he married Lucy in 1913.

Should there be some indication on a marriage certificate that there was a subsequent divorce? If it was bigamy should there be a marriage certificate for Lucy and Hendrikus? There is one because we have it!

He did name Kate as his wife and next of kin in his army records in 1915!

I can't see in that lineup of children how they had time to divorce. They obviously stayed close friends. :D

Is it worth getting some of the childrens birth certificates to see what it says in the space for father's name? If they were divorced would Hendrikus still be the default option, or should there be no father named??

Any hints on how we can work this all out?

[Uncle John]

I'm not an expert on divorce, but I know it was a very long-winded and expensive process until the ?1970s. Adultery was the "shortest" grounds. Desertion and other causes took longer.

[Olde Crone Holden]

I agree with UJ - divorce was expensive and long-winded. Bigamy was a very common and cheap alternative!

You are assuming that all Lucy's children were Henry's children. They probably weren't, but even their birth certs won't necessarily tell you the truth. She was the legal wife of Henry and therefore was entitled to put his name on the birth certs of any of her children. Even if a divorce had occurred, she could still lie to the Registrar and put Henry's name on the birth certs - the Registrar doesn't check what you tell him.

When the Registrar General is informed by the Court of a bigamous marriage, then that marriage cert SHOULD be suppressed, but this doesn't always happen and often the marriage remains evident in the bmd indexes.

If there is no court case for bigamy then no one knows it was a bigamous marriage anyway.

I think I would get a couple of certs anyway, but not sure what, if anything, they will tell you.

OC

[Little Nell]

You don't need to divorce if you have married bigamously as the bigamous marriage doesn't count.

It might be that Lucy found out that her husband was already married and they just separated. She may not have wanted any attendant publicity.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

You don't need to divorce if you have married bigamously as the bigamous marriage doesn't count.

It might be that Lucy found out that her husband was already married and they just separated. She may not have wanted any attendant publicity.

Although in theory if Lucy wanted to remarry and believed her first marriage to be bigamous, then she should have had it annulled in a court before marrying Mr Schlaepfer. If she had done so, and the process had been completed correctly, then the 1913 marriage cert you have for Lucy should not have been issued as the register office should have suppressed it.

However, it seems to me that most people who had been in a bigamous marriage just ignored the whole episode as if it never happened, rather than going through the courts!

I doubt Hendrikus and Kate were ever divorced - maybe that story came from trying to cover for him marrying someone else and then them getting back together? Have you found any evidence of their remarriage in Holland?

BTW, I don't know if you are interested, but there's a notice in The Times stating that a John Schlaepfer died in April 1948 (he was 55 which seems about right for Lucy's second husband). If you need a copy of the snippet let me know, though I realise he's a long way from your friend's family!

[KiwiChris]

I understand that my friend had some evidence from Holland. I am unsure what that is, but I can ask. He seems clear that there was a marriage in Holland in 1937 and that there is some sort of statement that they had been unmarried from 1914 but had been living together and registered as married in a different Dutch town from where the remarriage took place. My friend (who is Dutch) must have found this information somewhere, he has not had any of this from the family.

My friends mother, who would have been 15 at the time of the remarriage, seemed to know nothing about it. We actually started looking into his family tree because his sister claimed to be Jewish through the English side of the family (Kate) so I went looking. This was very much a surprise outcome of that quest! I could not find any evidence of Jewish names btw. :D :D :D

[KiwiChris]

My friend as sent for the birth certificate for the child born 1914, just a few months after Hendrikus married Lucy. I have warned him that it might not tell us anything, but would be interesting.

Thanks for the news of John Schlapfers death Merry, I will pass that on.

Henry/Hendrikus was a waiter on ships between Holland, England and America, so there may be even more wives out there yet to be found!