Site Maintenance - Friday 21st February 2020

Please be aware FTF will be offline for maintenance on the evening of Friday 21st February 2020

For further details please follow the link below:
See more
See less


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Actually, I guess the naming of a co-respondent could just be a red herring

    And sorry for having hi-jacked your thread, Trish

    "Nepotism - We promote family values here as often as we promote family members"- Larry Kersten, American sociologist and author


      Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
      And someone on here I think it was, reported a divorce in the late 1800s of a very lowly man, which appears to have been funded by the CHURCH!
      I have one in 1889 of a fairly nondescript couple, in this case funded by the wronged husband's parents (mostly the mother), who also "abducted" the child of the marriage. All very sad, by 1905 the child had hardly a living relative.
      Uncle John


        Just looked on the offchance for my "cad" Villiers, and I found a 1903 divorce (not the right people) where it's the husband's petition and the co-respondent is female.
        Uncle John


          Just a side note..............I found my divorce (pre 1858) in The Times Digital Archive.

          The whole juicy story was there.


            Just want to point out that those entries on the National Archives J77 include divorce actions that didn't actually result in a divorce (having looked at the obituary of one of the people involved in one of them)

            Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh"
            (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")


              Yes, that's a good point Kate - divorce was not automatic, just because you petitioned for it, not like it is these days.

              If there was the slightest sniff of collusion between the parties, the divorce was thrown out.



                many thanks for that link.

                I found my gt uncle's divorce, 1922, but what surprised me was that I also found him named as a co-respondent in an earlier divorce, 1918. He didn't go on to marry that lady, so I have come to the conclusion he was a serial womaniser :D

                He didn't have any legitimate children, which now leads me to wonder if there are a few Illegitimate ones we don't know about ;)