Not really divorced?

[lilylaces]

My Great grandmother Catherine Carpenter remarried in 1912, the marriage cert says she is the divorced wife of Charles Yeats (they were married in 1896).
She is still living with Charles in 1901 in Wallsend, Northumberland, by 1911 she's in Southampton with her children, no Charles. 

I've checked the National Archives J77 collection and haven't found a record of the divorce. I just wondered how much proof was needed of a divorce before you could remarry at that time. Would it be possible to fib?

I can't imagine they could have afforded a divorce either but then I thought it might be easier just to claim your unwanted spouse had died, so why say divorced on the MC?

Any help, advice, opinions gratefully received. 

[Suttonrog]

Have you a death for Charles?

There is one in 1903 in South Shields.

Rog

[stanmapstone]

I've checked the National Archives J77 collection and haven't found a record of the divorce. I just wondered how much proof was needed of a divorce before you could remarry at that time. Would it be possible to fib?

The information on  certificates is only as good as that supplied by the people involved.  The civil registration system in England and Wales is  'informant driven' that is the registrar/priest can only put what he is told. There is a penalty of perjury if the information is wilfully false, there is no way for it to be checked as accurate.
The operative word is "willfully",
From the 1836 Act.
 XLI. And be it enacted, That every Person who shall wilfully make or cause to be made, for the Purpose of being inserted in any Register of Birth, Death, or Marriage, any false Statement touching any of the Particulars herein required to be known and registered, shall be subject to the same Pains and Penalties as if he were guilty of Perjury
Also the marriage would be invalid if her previous husband was alive and would be guilty of bigamy.
Stan

[stanmapstone]

Just to add that the Instructions to the Clergy were that no entry should be made in the register books, under any circumstances, until after the marriage was legally complete, and that all the details be carefully read over to the parties and if correct inserted in their proper place in the register. However this was not always done, all the preliminary entries having been made  before the ceremony, leaving only the signatures of the couple and witnesses to be entered, who may not have noticed the incorrect entry.

Stan

[majm]

I've checked the National Archives J77 collection and haven't found a record of the divorce. I just wondered how much proof was needed of a divorce before you could remarry at that time. Would it be possible to fib?

Hi there,

Is it likely that either of them may have travelled to a different country to seek a divorce ? or perhaps the divorce was not through civil courts, but through their religious affiliation's court system.
Cheers,

JM

[lilylaces]

Thanks for so much interesting information everyone!

Charles and Catherine were married at St Luke's Church in Wallsend. To be honest I don't know how you would go about getting a divorce at that time,  I'd always assumed you would have to get divorced in the country where you were married  Charles' parents were Scottish but lived in Wallsend, would it be possible for them to be divorced in Scotland? I don't think they could have travelled any further, I've been told that Catherine was living in such harsh poverty she'd jumped at the first chance to get married and escape.    I've always wondered how and why she moved from Sunderland to Southampton too,  I'll probably never know!

Charles later emigrated to South Africa taking two of the older children with him.

I imagine lots of couples found themselves in this position, it must have been very hard and I guess bigamy was pretty common.

[stanmapstone]

The very poor could sue (for divorce) without payment of fees ‘in forma pauperis’ if they could prove their lack of means. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/RdLeaflet.asp?sLeafletID=53


Stan

[lilylaces]

Thank you Stan, that's very helpful and interesting reading. I'm still trying to find my way around the National Archives site, I seem to miss so much of the background information and it's so useful.