GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2005-04 > 1112525755


From: Eve McLaughlin <>
Subject: Re: even more OT, but personally pertinent
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 11:55:55 +0100
References: <68.528511b7.2f7c89a1@aol.com><24d22f544d%Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> <d2gra0$krb$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk><g9R+5VB+6HTCFwd+@varneys.demon.co.uk> <1a24cf.814d06@fmlynet.org><d2jfah$cs1$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b514kF6fp398U1@individual.net><d2jo6b$fjd$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b578eF6dkcv1U1@individual.net><424ddbd3$0$3094$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au><it9+9WANonTCFwdi@varneys.demon.co.uk><424f8e2b$0$11236$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>



> my mother married his
>(divorced)
>> >brother.
>>
>> Perfectly legal by then (but if the family were Catholic, the divorce
>> bit would be what they were fussing about.)
>
>Eve, thanks for that - our family was always C of E, and I never heard the
>divorce cited as the reason for the "fuss". Perhaps our local vicar was
>just 20 years behind the rest of the country!

I suspect the divorce was the problem, nevertheless - a lot of CofE
clergy didn't count what the law said and regarded the couple as still
married, just separated.

--
Eve McLaughlin

Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

This thread: