lr" JT f tff : - L ' Mw :
Why Is the Duke's Latest
Offense So Shocking That It
Made Her' Seek the Freedom
She Shrank from Asking Dur
ing 12 Years of Separation
4
4-
Crowherst, in Surrey, the Beautiful Old Place Which the Duchesa
Restored at Her Own Expense -and Where She and .the Duke -Spent
Their Recent Brief Period of Reconciliation.
LONDON.1 June 26. -
SOCIETY is Intensely curious to know
-what It Is that has caused the Amer
ican Duchess of Marlborough after all
these years to prosecute her divorce suit
against her defaulting husband so relent
lessly. Although the Duchess's unhappy
differences -with the Duke have been a
matter of common knowledge for many
, years there is no doubt that some entirely
new cause of disagreement between them
'which is hidden from the world has arisen
within less than a 'year. ; '
The chief known facts are that the Duke
and Duchess lived apart for twelve years
from 1907 to 1919, that the Duchessin that
time never attempted to secure a legal di
vorce, that they became reconciled for one
month in 1919, that the Duke then left her '
saying that it was Impossible to live with :
her and that the Duchess after that began
a suit for absolute divorce, which she
is prosecuting with the most unflinching
determination. i
What happened In that short month '
that angered the Duchess more than any-,
.thing the Duke had ever done before?;
What was it that caused her to seek the '
divorce she had not asked in twelve years?)
Inrsome quarters It has been assumed
that the Duchess wishes to marry again.;
For that purpose, of course, ! she would
need an absolute divorce. It would be
l ather surprising if the Duchess after years
of quarrelling with her husband and bare
ly six months after an attempt at recon
ciliation should wish to try the experi
ment again with another man, but women
have done more' surprising things. The
, Duchess has not revealed a marked prefer
ence for any Individual, but several of the
most brilliant men in England and France
are among her devoted friends.
Under the English divorce law a wife In
order to obtain an absolute divorce must
prove Infidelity, together with desertion or
cruelty, whereas the husband need only
prove Infidelity. For the purpose of prov
ing desertion it is customary for the wife
to ask the court for a decree of restitu
tion of conjugal rights.. The decree orders
te husband to return to his wife within a
certain time usually within fourteen-days.
If he fails to do so, this becomes proof
that he has deserted his wife. !
In accordance with this practice the
Duchess appeared in court last March and
applied for the decree of restitution, which
was granted. Although the visit to court
was evidently most distressing to the
Duchess, she told the story with many de
tails of their early disagreements, their
recent reconciliation and the - Duke's un
feeling desertion of her. But she said
nothing about the Duke's recent actions
which it Is supposed were the true rea
son of her bringing the legal proceeding.
The decree of restitution was Issued, the
Duke, who was in: France, refused to obey
it, as was expected, and then the Duchess
began her suit for absolute divorce.
The co-respondent was not named in ad-
r
r
j vance of the suit, but of course an abso
i lute divorce could not be obtained without
; one. In reply to this suit the Duke an
: nounced that he would oppose the divorce,
) a somewhat unusual course, as it has be
: come customary among husbands of high
social position to allow their wives to di
vorce them without opposition. i
It has been learned, however, that the
Duke's course in opposing the divorce is
in accordance with, the Dhchess'a wishes
and appears to have been followed by him
to oblige! her or else to have been forced
upon him by her lawyers.
Strange to say, a defended dl '
vorce suit Is absolutely necessary
in order: that the Duchess may
maintain her position at court,
which she values highly. Queen
Mary has determined that moral
ity, simplicity and frugality shall
distinguish her court more than
ever. She has Just given orders
. that no divorcee shall be received
at court unless she can show that
the divorce was granted in open
court in her favor, that both
parties were represented and that
custody i of the children was
granted to the wife.
So strict will be the court rules
that the Lord Chamberlain has '
announced that in most cases
divorcees will save themselves
trouble by not applying for pre- -5
sentation at all. This last admo
cltlon would not apply to a
woman like the Duchess of Marl
borough, who Is already highly respected
at court, but she cannot be allowed to dis
regard tha entire rule.
It has .been further ordered that women
' appearing at court shall not wear head
feathers, long trains or ostentatious dis
plays of jewelry.
It is clear now that the Duke's defence
against! his wife's suit is - necessary in
order that the Duchess may maintain her
position, but it remains a mystery why she
considered it necessary to bring the suit
at all. i She could easily have separated
from her husband quietly and lived apart
as they had done for many years and have
excited hardly any comment. i.
It is possible to reveal some curious
facts that have a bearing on this mystery.
When the Duchess asked for her restitu
tion decree she stated that she had serious
, disagreements with the Duke early In mar
ried life which made it Impossible for them
. to live together. . - -. . .
They separated in 1907. under private
articles of separation, which gave Blenheim
, Palace to the Duke,' left her In undivided
possession of Sunderland House, London,,
which she had Just built, and specified ar
rangements concerning the two children, v
In November, 1919, when this agreement
: expired, the Duke and Duchess met to dis
cuss the situation. He suggested that they
should try living together, again,' to which;
h7
?' - -
t:::-:-:v:::":::::':i:-'i:--'i-x-:
X ... '
she agreed. Her sympathies for
him were excited by his patriotism
in putting Blenheim Palace Park
under cultivation for war reasons.
They spent the period of reconcilia
tion, an odd sort of late honey
moon, at Crowherst Place, in Sur
rey, a lovely old house which the
Duchess had restored and reno
vated with extraordinary skill. and
. expenditure of money.
They began to live together on
November 27, and on December 15
the Duke went away without a
word of . warning and sent this letter to
the Duchess:
: "Blenheim, Woodstock.
"My Dear Consuelo: '
"We have tried ur best to mend the
past and start life afresh, but I fear that
in the long period of our separation, now
upwards of twelve years, we have grown
too far apart to live happily together again.
I appreciate all you have tried to do dur
ing our reunion, but I am now convinced it
is Impossible. Believe me.
"Yours, "SUNNY. ,
To this unfeeling letter the Duchess re
plied: Dear Sunny I have received your let
ter. . Tc wish you had spoken to me instead
of writing. It seems a pity now that we
ever came together again only for every
thing to end like this. It is useless to Bay
more. : I must go away and rest, for a
while.. -Yours.- "CONSUELO." ,
Later she wrote to him as follows:
"Dear Sunny While I have (been away
I have thought over everything and you.
too, have had time to reflect,' so I am writ
ing to ask you to reconsider your decision
not to return to me. If you will do so; I
can assure you nothing on my part will
be wanVng'to try and make you happy. .
"Yours, CONSUELO.
To . this the Duke replied, brusquely, as
follows:
v .CO 1920. International Feature Service, Zao,
. r
r x
- ... t s
-
i, :
: 4 , S f
liM sifci? ill
-'"' " "
' My - Dear Consuelo I have received
your letter of the 21st; written on your re
turn from the Continent. As I wrote to
you in 'December, when we parted,-1 am
convinced that It Is impossible ' for us to'
live happily together."
Some curious Inferences may be drawn
from this brief correspondence. ? Probably
most Americans have supposed . that the
puchess dismissed the Duke from her
t i ,
. 0reat Britain Kigbti Seserved
Blenheim
' Palace,
One
of the
Great
Historic
Houses
of
England,
Which
the
American
Duchess
Can
Never
Occupy
Again.
7
A.
The
Sad Face
of the
Duchesi?i!
From Her
Latest
Photograph, 7'
Taken Since
Her Last!
Separation
from the
Puke
The Duchess
in the
State Robes
and Coronet
of Her Rank,
Which She
Can Never
Wear Again.
home because of his.' repeated misconduct.
From the correspondence, however, it Is
plain' that after their reconciliation It was
the! Duke who went away because he sim
ply could not endure the Duchess, although
he tried rather hard toi do so. From the
tone of the correspondence' it is inferred
that the original disagreement must have
been of a similar character
The Duchess, whose proud nature is well
r .
A - i
A .
X-cyyy
The Duke of Marlborough", Who
Left His American Wife After Her
Repeated Efforts at Reconciliation.
known, condescended very deeply In the
opinion? of her friends when she urged the
Duke to return to her after their second
parting. The Duke rejected her loving
overture with abrupt, almost contemptuous
harshness. : i
The proud, sensitive Duchess was deeply
angered at the insolence of a husband who
owed - much to her and who had never
shown any return for all the benefits re
ceived but cruelty. Insults and unfaithful
ness. Her anger at this latest exhibition
of heartlessness by the Duke Is believed to
be largely responsible for the determina
tion with which she is prosecuting her
divorce suit.
According to this view, she wants to
punish him. Under a divorce decree she
could enforce severer terms on the Duke
than under a private agreement.
V But anger on the Duchess's side and
heartlessness on the Duke's would be of
"no effect In securing her divorce. For this
latter purpose she must prove his infidelity.
The acts of which she complains must
have been committed either during their
reconciliation or since then. Any acts
committed -before that time would, accord
t ing to English law, be condoned by the
Duchess when she resumed living with the
Duke and could not be the basis of a di
vorce suit. "
At the time of the original separation of
tne pair there were widespread reports,
even repeated in print, that the Duchess
was offended by the attentions of the Duke
to a distinguished society woman noted
for her beauty and fascination. These re
ports arose perhaps as much as anything
from the almost universal admiration
which this famed beauty received from the
most highly placed princes and noblemen
in' Europe. ,
Society knows that the separation was
in large measure due to the utterly heart
less, selfish and cynical conduct of the
Duke within a few years of their marriage,
which occurred in 1895. It is generally
understood that the Duchess's father, W.
K. VanderbiU, set aside a fortune of $10,
000,000 for the Joint use of the couple and
the support of their family, protecting it
by many legal restrictions. , t
Those who are familiar with : the
Duchess's life say that the affronts offered
by the Duke at the time of the brief recon
ciliation and since then have been of a
most intolerable character, but in advance
of the suit nobody ventured to mention
names.
The- intimation has been made that the
Duke, after trying married life anew with
the Duchess for a short while deliberately
sought the society of a former companion
This would have been a most outrageous
affront to the Duchess, meaning that after
mature consideration and experiment he
had no longer any possible doubt that he
preferred the society-:-of, another person
to hers. r
It is even probable that he shamelessly
paraded his Indifference to his wife during
the brief period when she was loyally en
deavoring to display the true spirit of
wifely love and to make-their reconciliation
a genuine one. It would surprise no one
if the Duke alleged that he believed his
wife wished a reconciliation merely for
the sake of dignity, respectability and"
court position, and that she was willing to
allow him to enjoy perfect freedom and to
amuse himself JuBt as he pleased without
comment or interference on her part. Such
"cynical conceptions of domestic. life are of
" course not uncommon among the European
e-'stocracjr,