Cecilia very kindly sent the link below for me. At first we read it that divorce was allowed because of lunacy but then when we re read it decided that divorce couldn't be granted because of lunacy unless the marriage had not been consummated. Because of where the commas are I am now wondering if it does mean that the marriage could be dissolved on the grounds as follows: 1.   If the marriage were not consummated within two years, for impotence, frigidity or lunacy, or if the marriage could be shown to be incestuous or bigamous, or carried out by force or in error, or, before 1753, if one of the parties lacked age and consent.  Or should we be reading it as: 1.  If the marriage were not consummated within two years.2.  For impotence.3.  For frigidity.4   For lunacy. 5   and so on.   Help would be appreciated.Many thanks,MaureenFrom: Cecilia Bell <[email protected]> To: 'Maureen Ellen' <[email protected]>; [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 27 December 2014, 22:30 Subject: RE: [YORKSGEN] Disolution of a marriage to someone who was a long term inmate of an Asylum Hi Maureen, >From the Family search web-site: https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Divorce_in_England_and_Wales Divorce from the chain or bond of matrimony (a vincula matrimonii) which declared invalid the marriage itself and thus allowed either party to remarry. It could be granted if the marriage were not consummated within two years, for impotence, frigidity or lunacy, or if the marriage could be shown to be incestuous or bigamous, or carried out by force or in error, or, before 1753, if one of the parties lacked age and consent. These were ripe fields for argument and appeal if property was involved. Presumably the husband being in an asylum is the same as lunacy. Regards, Cecilia Bell in Essex UK

It is a very interesting conundrum that you raise. ISTR a film in which this very situation crops up. Isn’t this the same situation as appears in the Charlotte Bronte novel Jane Eyre? Mr Rochester tries to cover up the fact that he has an insane wife because he wants to marry Jane. The law does not allow it at that time. I have just found these details of a celebrated case in which the wife was found to have mental illness, so the petition for divorce was thrown out! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Mordaunt Cecilia -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maureen Ellen via Sent: 28 December 2014 12:52 To: Yorksgen Subject: Re: [YORKSGEN] Dissolution of a marriage to someone who was a long term inmate of an Asylum People Cecilia very kindly sent the link below for me. At first we read it that divorce was allowed because of lunacy but then when we re read it decided that divorce couldn't be granted because of lunacy unless the marriage had not been consummated. Because of where the commas are I am now wondering if it does mean that the marriage could be dissolved on the grounds as follows: 1. If the marriage were not consummated within two years, for impotence, frigidity or lunacy, or if the marriage could be shown to be incestuous or bigamous, or carried out by force or in error, or, before 1753, if one of the parties lacked age and consent. Or should we be reading it as: 1. If the marriage were not consummated within two years.2. For impotence.3. For frigidity.4 For lunacy. 5 and so on. Help would be appreciated.Many thanks,MaureenFrom: Cecilia Bell <[email protected]> To: 'Maureen Ellen' <[email protected]>; [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 27 December 2014, 22:30 Subject: RE: [YORKSGEN] Disolution of a marriage to someone who was a long term inmate of an Asylum Hi Maureen, >From the Family search web-site: https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Divorce_in_England_and_Wales Divorce from the chain or bond of matrimony (a vincula matrimonii) which declared invalid the marriage itself and thus allowed either party to remarry. It could be granted if the marriage were not consummated within two years, for impotence, frigidity or lunacy, or if the marriage could be shown to be incestuous or bigamous, or carried out by force or in error, or, before 1753, if one of the parties lacked age and consent. These were ripe fields for argument and appeal if property was involved. Presumably the husband being in an asylum is the same as lunacy. Regards, Cecilia Bell in Essex UK ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

A sequel to the previous message ... Divorce There is very limited information available about Lady Mordaunt’s life between 1871 and her death in 1906. After various legal appeals, including to the House of Lords (in the judicial capacity that it exercised then), Sir Charles Mordaunt’s petition for divorce was remitted to the original court on the basis that Lady Mordaunt’s insanity was not, as a matter of law, a bar to proceedings. Eventually, in 1875, Sir Charles was granted a divorce on the grounds of his wife’s adultery with Lord Cole, who did not contest the action. In 1878 Sir Charles married Mary Louisa Cholmondeley, the daughter of a parson. Cecilia -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maureen Ellen via Sent: 28 December 2014 12:52 To: Yorksgen Subject: Re: [YORKSGEN] Dissolution of a marriage to someone who was a long term inmate of an Asylum People Cecilia very kindly sent the link below for me. At first we read it that divorce was allowed because of lunacy but then when we re read it decided that divorce couldn't be granted because of lunacy unless the marriage had not been consummated. Because of where the commas are I am now wondering if it does mean that the marriage could be dissolved on the grounds as follows: 1. If the marriage were not consummated within two years, for impotence, frigidity or lunacy, or if the marriage could be shown to be incestuous or bigamous, or carried out by force or in error, or, before 1753, if one of the parties lacked age and consent. Or should we be reading it as: 1. If the marriage were not consummated within two years.2. For impotence.3. For frigidity.4 For lunacy. 5 and so on. Help would be appreciated.Many thanks,MaureenFrom: Cecilia Bell <[email protected]> To: 'Maureen Ellen' <[email protected]>; [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 27 December 2014, 22:30 Subject: RE: [YORKSGEN] Disolution of a marriage to someone who was a long term inmate of an Asylum Hi Maureen, >From the Family search web-site: https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Divorce_in_England_and_Wales Divorce from the chain or bond of matrimony (a vincula matrimonii) which declared invalid the marriage itself and thus allowed either party to remarry. It could be granted if the marriage were not consummated within two years, for impotence, frigidity or lunacy, or if the marriage could be shown to be incestuous or bigamous, or carried out by force or in error, or, before 1753, if one of the parties lacked age and consent. These were ripe fields for argument and appeal if property was involved. Presumably the husband being in an asylum is the same as lunacy. Regards, Cecilia Bell in Essex UK ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com