 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010Waugh: Evidence
Hello: In 1938 in the UK, did they still need proof of adultery with witnesses/detectives or something simulated like that, "in flagrante?" I remember that from other novels. Or would their statements (Julia and Ryder's) have been enough? --- [Julia lives with and wants to marry Ryder but first needs to divorce Rex Mottram] Evidence was taken against Julia and me at my flat. Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited, p. 837 ---- -- Thanks. Marius Hancu >Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Or would their statements (Julia and Ryder's) have been enough? When the same happened to me in the late 1960s (in England) a man came to speak to me on behalf of my wife's lawyer. I and the woman I was then living with made statements. No further evidence was needed. >--- >[Julia lives with and wants to marry Ryder but first needs to divorce [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited, p. 837 >----  SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > In 1938 in the UK, did they still need proof of adultery with > witnesses/detectives or something simulated like that, "in flagrante?" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited, p. 837 Divorce in 1938 in England required a trial in court (or else an Act of Parliament) with acceptable evidence of one of the legal grounds for divorce (mainly cruelty, insanity or adultery.) Among these, adultery was the easiest to substantiate in court by testimony that someone witnessed two named people in bed together, specifying date and place. Certain private detective agencies and certain hotels seemed to specialize in this business. The notorious divorce of the period was that of Wallis Simpson, processed by a court at Ipswich so as to avoid London gossip reporters. "Marriage breakdown" and long separation did not become legal grounds for divorce until decades later. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > In 1938 in the UK, did they still need proof of adultery with > > witnesses/detectives or something simulated like that, "in flagrante?" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Certain private detective agencies and certain hotels > seemed to specialize in this business. That's exactly how I remembered it. Thank you all. Marius Hancu > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited, p. 837 It was the rifeness of collusion, and blatantly deceptive evidence in court, which prompted the humorist and independent Member of Parliament A.P. Herbert to pillory it in his 1934 novel "Holy Deadlock", then to obtain passage of the updated Matromonial Causes Act in 1937. Until then, everybody in the divorce business knew exactly how to prepare and bring a case, and the courts seem to have simply turned a blind eye to the repetitiveness and the implausibility of the evidence produced in case after case. -- >> Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the repetitiveness and the implausibility of the > evidence produced in case after case. Didn't the man wear special two tone shoes? >>> Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Didn't the man wear special two tone shoes? Co-respondent's shoes. See http://www.danceworld.demon.co.uk/Frames%20Pages/Black%20and%20white%20shoes%20FP.htm or http://tinyurl.com/yz5q6hh SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>> Hello: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >or >http://tinyurl.com/yz5q6hh Quoted in the OED: 1934 A. G. MACDONELL How like an Angel II. ix. 155 A pair of those singularly repulsive shoes of black and white which are called ‘Co-respondents’ (quite wrongly called, incidentally, for co-respondents at least get and give some fun, and these shoes do neither). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in <66v6k5lev20d8b5inj3t05f8ssa5825frc@4ax.com> on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:55:13 +0000: > >>Didn't the man wear special two tone shoes? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > co-respondents at least get and give some fun, and these shoes do > neither). I have that book and the quote is indeed in chapter ix and on page 155. What does the II signify? SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in ><66v6k5lev20d8b5inj3t05f8ssa5825frc@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >What does the II signify? I'm not sure. Is the book divided into two or more sections as well as chapters? SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in <th97k5hv3k3cjqjmo6o0i22hur8vnh7ni0@4ax.com> on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:53:29 +0000: > >Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in > ><66v6k5lev20d8b5inj3t05f8ssa5825frc@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I'm not sure. Is the book divided into two or more sections as well as > chapters? Spot on. It is in two sections but the chapter numbering is continuous from end to end so it is superfluous information. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in ><th97k5hv3k3cjqjmo6o0i22hur8vnh7ni0@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Spot on. It is in two sections but the chapter numbering is continuous >from end to end so it is superfluous information. To you and me maybe, but the author mighty be very proud of the conceptual/artistic division into two sections. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in <l6v8k51uvvtjh8o6ehntonf3jej4qr2b2b@4ax.com> on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:07:36 +0000: > >Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in > ><th97k5hv3k3cjqjmo6o0i22hur8vnh7ni0@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > To you and me maybe, but the author mighty be very proud of the > conceptual/artistic division into two sections. I meant from the point of view of finding the quote in the bound copy. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE [...] > Quoted in the OED: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > co-respondents at least get and give some fun, and these shoes do > neither). Good old A.G.MacDonnel! I heartily recommend _England, Their England_ to anybody who hasn't had the pleasure yet. The whole thing's good, but I particularly remember the cricket match. SignatureMike. Mike Lyle wrote, in <hi2aha$lr7$1@news.eternal-september.org> on Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:34:04 -0000: > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > anybody who hasn't had the pleasure yet. The whole thing's good, but I > particularly remember the cricket match. The opening chapter is also a classic. It is one of my permanent bedside books. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE > Mike Lyle wrote, in <hi2aha$lr7$1@news.eternal-september.org> > on Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:34:04 -0000: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The opening chapter is also a classic. It is one of my permanent > bedside books. AOL. Until reading up-thread, I hadn't realised he had written anything else. Dated, but highly readable. Regards Jonathan Jonathan Morton wrote, in <feSdna_eEo_xednWnZ2dnUVZ8iGdnZ2d@bt.com> on Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:28:41 -0000: > > Mike Lyle wrote, in <hi2aha$lr7$1@news.eternal-september.org> > > on Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:34:04 -0000: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > AOL. Until reading up-thread, I hadn't realised he had written anything > else. Dated, but highly readable. I have three others that I happened to see going for a couple of shillings in a second hand bookshop years ago an bought on spec. They are not much good. They are: How Like An Angel Lords And Masters Flight From A Lady. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >>> It was the rifeness of collusion, and blatantly >>> deceptive evidence in court, which prompted the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > or > http://tinyurl.com/yz5q6hh Indeed. But, as Bert mentioned earlier, the evidence - for those who could afford it - was always trumped up. Neither party would go near Brighton - or wherever - but the private detective firms would just pay the chambermaid to produce the right kind of statement. This is also the theme of one of APH's "Misleading Cases", ("A swan song", if I remember correctly, in which a retiring barrister blows the gaffe in his final speech), the serious point of which is that divorce was still effectively limited to the upper classes. This wasn't swept away until 1969, when the concept of the innocent and guilty parties was removed, and irretrievable breakdown became the only ground. The other creature you may come across in literature is the King's Proctor - a sort of interfering busybody whose job seems to have been to prevent divorce by collusion, or - perish the thought - to catch the innocent party having an adulterous affair at the same time, which would scupper the divorce. Don't laugh: this sort of thing did happen in the 1930s. Regards Jonathan On 5 Jan, 19:31, "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> wrote: > a retiring barrister blows the gaffe No final 'e' in 'gaff', Jonathan... > On 5 Jan, 19:31, "Jonathan Morton" > <jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> a retiring barrister blows the gaffe > > No final 'e' in 'gaff', Jonathan... Thanks for spotting my gaffe... Actually, I don't think I have ever looked up either word - or indeed the one referring to house - in the dictionary before. Subconsciously, I think I was treating them as a single word. Regards Jonathan > Hello: > > In 1938 in the UK, did they still need proof of adultery with > witnesses/detectives or something simulated like that, "in flagrante?" > I remember that from other novels. Holy Deadlock by the blessed AP Herbert was published in 1934, and starts with just that scene (the entire purpose of the novel was to satirise the existing practice). He then got himself elected to parliament, proposed and passed the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1937 which liberalised things greatly. I'm not whether since then you'd still need evidence for immediate divorce on grounds of adultery, but you could divorce by mutual consent without it if you were prepared to wait. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >> Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > divorce on grounds of adultery, but you could divorce by mutual consent > without it if you were prepared to wait. Bizarrely in these days of civil partnerships, in the case of adultery being relied on as grounds for divorce, there must have been a sexual relationship with a person of the opposite sex. There is a mechanism for dissolving a civil partnership, but not on the grounds of adultery. SignatureDavid >> Holy Deadlock by the blessed AP Herbert was published in 1934, and >> starts with just that scene (the entire purpose of the novel was to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > relationship with a person of the opposite sex. There is a mechanism for > dissolving a civil partnership, but not on the grounds of adultery. As you say, a same-sex relationship by one party outside the marriage would not be adultery. However, it can still provide evidence by being behaviour such that the the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. This is what the press always call "unreasonable behaviour" - wrongly, because the element of reasonableness is considered from the point of view of the petitioner. Strictly speaking, there is only one ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown. The 1969 reforms introduced this - the object being to attempt to remove some of the idea of fault. But it was fudged, because the various ways of proving irretrievable breakdown were prescribed by the Act - adultery being one. Regards Jonathan >> Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > divorce on grounds of adultery, but you could divorce by mutual consent > without it if you were prepared to wait. I am not sure if it has changed subsequently, but the 1969 reforms introduced two years' separation with consent, five years' without consent. This last was very controversial when introduced, because for the first time a deserting spouse could foist a divorce on a deserted one. Despite the nickname of a "Casanova's charter" (which I think was taken from one of the debates in Parliament), the five-year provision was used by more women than men. Regards Jonathan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.