History 3640 - the Challenges of Obtaining a Divorce in Medieval England

Liddy Potts

History 3640

2/7/2016

The Challenges of Obtaining a Divorce in Medieval England

        Despite popular belief that divorce is a modern day invention, numerous court records reveal couples could, and did get divorces in Medieval England. The process of getting a divorce during this time period, however, was vastly different than how the process is today. Unlike modern divorces, which are a common occurrence and socially acceptable, divorce in the Middle Ages was difficult to obtain and had many negative social and economic consequences, particularly for the woman involved. Since most couples did not want to waste the time and money of getting a legal divorce or separation, they instead would participate in self-divorces. This way, couples avoided the lengthy litigation process, saved money, and potentially their reputation. Even then, however, couples still were at risk of the courts finding out about their separation and forcing them to reconcile. Overall, getting a divorce in Medieval England was not an easy process to say the least. Divorces effected many other people than just the couple, such as family members and royal officials. Many obstacles stood in the way of a woman getting the divorce, such as the cost of getting a divorce, dealing with dangerous spouses, and putting the legitimacy of her child in threat.

        What seems to be the main obstacle that stood in the way of a woman getting a legal divorce through the court system was the cost. Although it was thought that self-divorce was a better option for most because it removed the chance of the court denying the couple a divorce, they were also a better option because it eliminated the high cost of receiving a legal divorce. The cost of getting a divorce was so high that it was not in the means for most married couples (Butler, 42). Butler explains in chapter two that divorce lawyer’s clients had to pay for the preparation of each document and for every court appearance (Butler, 42). Furthermore, Butler states that the plaintiff also had to be prepared to pay the costs of both litigants, because the outcome of the case determined who would pay the bills (Butler, 42). Additionally, not many couples were lucky enough to live close to a diocesan or provincial court, which were the only courts that had the power to dissolve marriages. Therefore, many couples had to pay for their travel costs to the courts in addition to paying for their witnesses’ travel costs too. Successful litigations required that there be at least two reputable witnesses, and in some cases a plaintiff had up to eleven witnesses (Butler, 42).  To get a sense of how much a divorce might cost in medieval England, Butler mentions a fifteenth-century petition to the chancellor. Butler states, “Drafted in hopes of recovering a loan granted to Dame Jane Curson when divorcing her husband, the petition reveals that Jane borrowed 40 marks to pay for the process of divorce” (Butler, 42). Paying for divorce costs were especially hard for women, since husbands were the ones that had control over all of the finances. Luckily, the church occasionally intervened on the wife’s behalf to order the husband to pay for his wife’s living expenses until the divorces was finalized (Butler, 42). As Butler states in chapter two, a courtroom divorce was best suited for men and women of means. When getting a divorce, women especially had to consider the expense of the proceedings, the need for financial support during the duration of the trial, and the expense of potentially receiving protection from dangerous husbands (Butler, 57). Simply put, most women did not have the time or money to get a divorce through the courts, so they settled with self-divorce instead.

Another obstacle that prevented many women from wanting to get divorces was violence within the marriage. Going through a divorce was highly risky task for women in Medieval England. Such risks included the potential of escalating violence between the couple seeking a divorce (Butler, 72). Many women had to tolerate abusive relationships with their spouses because assaulting one’s wife was viewed as part of a man’s duty to correct her behavior during the time period. A quote from Sharon Wright in chapter one states, “what we consider assault was understood as correction: it was both a man’s duty and his right” (Butler, 32).  Because physical abuse was basically expected and even accepted in medieval marriages, many women stayed in their relationship instead of taking the time to attempt to separate through the court system. Furthermore, trying to make a case to the court on the grounds of cruelty was extremely hard to accomplish. In chapter one, Butler explains that the church’s expectations on separation for cruelty was extreme (Butler, 32). Butler also states in chapter one, “The English church courts interpreted cruelty as an attempt on a person’s life” (Butler 32). This means that a wife could only sue for divorce if her husband literally attempted to murder her. For example, in chapter three, Butler discusses the situation of Nicholas Portland and his wife Lucy. The two had been married for twenty years and had over twelve children when Nicholas began to have an affair with another woman named Margaret. Butler states, “When Lucy ‘grumbled a little as far as she dared,’ Nicholas reacted by imprisoning Lucy for a long time in iron fetters within a narrow room, without food and other necessities” (Butler, 71). The fact that Lucy chose to stay with her abusive husband reveals that women would have rather stayed in abusive relationships than risk escalating the violence by trying to sue for divorce (Butler, 72). This case also reveals that many wives probably did not even think they would be able to obtain a divorce because although their husband severely abused them, they did not try to murder them.

Going through a divorce did not only effect the couple going through the process, but also people assisting the divorce process. Because of the high potential for violence against the wife, the courts sometimes appointed security to them during the divorce proceedings. Offering protection, however, was most often reserved for “well-heeled” wives who had connections with the king (Butler, 54). Although, by protecting these wives, royal officials put themselves at risk of being pursued by the husband. Butler discusses the case of Alice and Stephen Worlyk as an example of royal officials being implicated while trying to protect a woman. Butler explains that Alice requested the assistance of sheriffs John Brewes and William Curson while she sued for a divorce from her “husband” Stephen on the grounds of kidnap, rape, imprisonment, and forced marriage. Stephen then retaliated by requesting that his wife be returned, that he received damages for his troubles and the the perpetrators be summoned to Parliament to answer to their actions (Butler, 55). Fortunately, Stephen’s letter did not persuade the king and Alice remained under protection by the sheriffs (Butler, 55). In addition to being put at risk of harassment or imprisonment, bodyguards for the wives in danger also had to worry about the process occupying a large sum of their time. “The need for protection did not disappear once the divorce was finalized,” Butler states in chapter two (Butler, 55). Butler goes on to explain, “Humiliation, vengeance, and even denial prompted some husbands to persist in harassing their wives” (Butler, 57).