RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Stewart R on Tuesday 28 January 25 16:59 GMT (UK)
-
Whilst tidying up the details for a Great Grand Uncle of mine called Richard Newett Hawkin, i came across a note I'd made with words "Divorce filed 14th June 1889". I believe he married twice but this may have been his second wife, called Louisa. Before i take this divorce as a certainty i'd like to confirm it some how. Unfortunately I've no idea where i'd taken this note from. As he was in the RN the records i do have from his life show him in both Plymouth & Portsmouth at various times
I reckon I've broken a research golden rule of noting info sources ::) so i was wondering if any of the fine people on RootsChat could help, please
Regards
Stewart
-
The only marriage showing is 1887 presumably to Louisa Armstrong. The next Richard N Hawkin marriage is 49yrs later in Liverpool
No details given in your post - is he the 1849 birth in Devonport? Died 1895 aged 46 Plymouth
-
FindMyPast have his name in the Divorce Index for 1889. Records said to be at The National Archives.
ADDED:
The image on FindMyPast adds another name - William Warne :-\
3039 - Hawkin, Richard Nervett - v: H. Louisa & Warne Wm.
-
1891 has a 36yr old Louisa Hawkin living in Kent. Shown as married - occ laundress
-
The divorce record, all 19 pages of it, can be viewed on Ancestry - his name has been transcribed as Richard Nervett Hawkin.
William
-
Makes interesting reading. He alleges she had sexual encounters with other mariners & the term prostitute is used
-
Thanks all for the speedy response.
Yes he is the one B 1849 in Devonport. CaroleW
I guess William Warne may have been the third party in the divorce BumbleB
hmm! 19 page document, Millmoor. must have been some case, sadly no Ancestry membership at the moment but i think i can conclude the, presumably costly divorce did take place.
Just noticed your last reply CaroleW. Hmm! so she had an eye for the sailors? :o
Stewart
-
It would appear that William Warne was not alone..."during the month of December 1888 and the month of January 1889 the said Louisa Hawkin at Number 11 Fellowes Place aforesaid led the life of a prostitute and on divers occasions committed adultery with divers men".
The marriage took place Sept 13 1887 . He was 37 and a widower. His occupation is shown as , I think, Warrant Officer R N (writing not great!). She was 31 and a widow.
William
-
Does your local library have access to Ancestry?
-
Good call KGarrad, thanks
Stewart
-
The 1887 marriage has Louisa's maiden name transcribed as Tuckey with father James, a butcher. Again I note that the writing on the original is poor.
I think more likely is the surname Tucker as there is this marriage in Portsea March 20th 1878
Frederick James Armstrong 25 Licensed Victualler to Louisa Tucker 23 Spinster - Father James Tucker, Butcher.
The 1881 census has the Armstongs at 28 North Street, Portsea. Frederick is a 28 year old publican born Southampton. Louisa is 25, born in Birmingham. They have a 2 year old daughter called Louisa born Portsea.
Death notice for Frederick James Armstrong 14 Jan 1887 " On the 5th instant, at North Street, Portsea, Mr Frederick James Armstrong, aged 34 years".
William
-
The divorce doc refers to Louisa being a widow at the time if the 1887 marriage. Can't fathom out why Richard was ordered to pay her maintenance when she was the guilty party?? Perhaps I haven't read it all
-
The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 allowed divorce cases to be heard in a civil Court, rather than an ecclesiastical court.
However, the Act did not treat women's and men's grounds for divorce equally (largely on the grounds that women's adultery was more serious because it introduced doubt as to the paternity of possible heirs). Thus a husband could petition for divorce on the sole grounds that his wife had committed adultery, whereas a wife could only hope for a divorce based on adultery combined with other offences such as incest, cruelty, bigamy, desertion, etc. (or based on cruelty alone).
Thus it was easier for a couple to divorce blaming the wife, rather than the husband. Regardless as to who was actually at fault.
-
Thank you all for your continued interest & information. You've certainly provided me with some food for thought.
Stewart