> Subject: [SW_VA] Re: Early VA divorce question > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:33:29 -0500 > From: "Edgar A. Howard" <swvaroot@earthlink.net> > To: SW_VA-L@rootsweb.com > > <<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>> > While looking through some old divorce records I noticed that most > all of > them stated: "was forbidden to marry again, etc". > My question is, was the accused party always forbidden to marry > again? I am > interested in this because I am searching for a woman who was > divorced in > 1866 and her husband was the one who brought about the suit. I > found where > he had later married but can find no record of her ever regarding > any > manner, so I thought that if they were allowed to remarry even > though she > was the one guilty, maybe I need to start checking on another name. > I would appreciate any information regarding my question. > Thanks for your help, > Brenda > > <<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Brenda, > > I have never seen that in association with a divorce. What > county is that? The date is interesting. Divorce was rare > then, or so I thought. > << no record of her ever regarding any > manner >> > > You mean she never remarried? > > I did not know a court had the power to order that. Wouldn't > that cause them to "live in sin?" > -eddie > > Subject: [SW_VA] Re: "forbidden to marrry again" > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:35:53 -0500 > From: "Peggy C Fuller Keen" <muff@netscope.net> > To: SW_VA-L@rootsweb.com > > "was forbidden to marry again, etc". > > This phrase is in early divorces in Buchanan County, also. > > Peggy C Fuller Keen > > Subject: Re: [SW_VA] Re: "forbidden to marrry again" > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 21:31:48 -0500 > From: "Annette Damron" <annetted@tgtel.com> > To: SW_VA-L@rootsweb.com > > This is also on divorce records in Wise Co. Va. > > ______________________________ > It's also in early Russell Co. records. Mike