In Regency England, a divorce or annulment were extremely difficult for either party to get, but especially women. Peers and peeresses had to apply to the House of Lords for a divorce. Commoners filed in court. Until 1857, peers, peeresses, and commoners, required a private bill to be passed by the Lords in order for one to be able to remarry. The process was complicated and also involved the Ecclesiastical Court. Divorce was also scandalous. Gentlemen could survive socially, but ladies rarely did.
For men, the grounds for divorce were usually adultery, including a case for criminal conversion brought against the wife’s lover. Evidence had to be given in the form of eye-witness testimony or testimony by the wife’s lover.
Women could not divorce a husband based on adultery. The only grounds for divorce was physical abuse. Sometime even grievous abuse was not enough. It was much easier for a woman to obtain a separation with maintenance. The other issue with a woman leaving her husband was any children. Men had the right to the children, and unless the children were at risk, a woman frequently had to leave her children behind. Some mothers never saw their children again.
Annulment: Marriages could be annulled based on the consanguinity, the closeness of the relationship between the parties. For example, during the Regency it was not allowed for a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister (it did happen, but not among the aristocracy because it could be challenged), failure to be able to have marital relations, underage marriage performed by a license, and mental unfitness. There are two notable cases involving failure to be able to perform sexual congress (remember consummation of the marriage was not necessary in England). The first is a woman whose hymen was so thick it would require a surgical procedure to enable to her engage in marital relations and she refused to have the procedure. The second case was a gentleman who could not preform. After the annulment, he went on to remarry and had several children. One of the lords remarked that they ought not to have given him the annulment, whereupon another said that just because he couldn’t preform with one woman didn’t mean another might not have success.
This was a quick overview. If you’re interested in more information I recommend the following post by Nancy Myer. http://www.regencyresearcher.com/pages/marriagedis.html

#RegencyTrivia #HistoricalRomance #ReadaRegency #GeorgetteHeyer
Like this:
Like Loading...
Read Full Post »