Can the term divorcée apply if a woman has not only divorced, but subsequently remarried?Can...

The Sword in the Stone

Unethical behavior : should I report it?

Why are all my history books dividing Chinese history after the Han dynasty?

What is "I bet" in German?

How acidic does a mixture have to be for milk to curdle?

Examples of simultaneous independent breakthroughs

Can the term divorcée apply if a woman has not only divorced, but subsequently remarried?

Trying to build a function to compute divided difference for arbitrary list of points

Why was Sauron preparing for war instead of trying to find the ring?

kids pooling money for Lego League and taxes

This message is flooding my syslog, how to find where it comes from?

Why does RPM for a fixed-pitch propeller change with an aircraft's pitch?

Word for showing a small part of something briefly to hint to its existence or beauty without fully uncovering it

Why are off grid solar setups only 12, 24, 48 VDC?

Is it normal practice to screen share with a client?

What does コテッと mean?

Can I make a matrix from just a parts of the cells?

How to change the font style (not the size but the style) of algorithimc package

How to Create an Image for Cantor's *Diagonal Argument* with a Diagonal Oval

Basic Questions on Wiener Filtering

Is it legal for private citizens to "impound" e-scooters?

Why is drive/partition number still used?

How to judge a Ph.D. applicant that arrives "out of thin air"

When going by a train from Paris to Düsseldorf (Thalys), can I hop off in Köln and then hop on again?



Can the term divorcée apply if a woman has not only divorced, but subsequently remarried?


Can “crepuscular” and/or “twilight” apply to morning half-light as well as in the evening“But Only” - How to Figure Out the Meaning?can the term “pro rata” include cutting for non-use in the middle of a period?Can something be efficient but not effective?Colloquially, does the term “redhead” apply specifically to a person with naturally red hair?What is the name for a description which is not true but is common place?Seeking Generic Word: Place where opponents fightWhy is a young man called “son,” but a young woman is never called “daughter”?Can the word 'fertility' be used in reference to whether you choose to have children or not?What does the English word “widow” NOT include?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







1















Can the term divorcée apply if a woman has not only divorced, but subsequently remarried? The definitions I have perused do not address the matter, but I would think the answer is "no."










share|improve this question


















  • 2





    That sounds like it would be very confusing if she has already remarried. "Divorced" and "married" refer to current marital state, not history. On the other hand, I think they continued to refer to Wallis as a divorcée even after she was married to Edward.VIII, but possibly that was out of spite.

    – Cascabel
    8 hours ago




















1















Can the term divorcée apply if a woman has not only divorced, but subsequently remarried? The definitions I have perused do not address the matter, but I would think the answer is "no."










share|improve this question


















  • 2





    That sounds like it would be very confusing if she has already remarried. "Divorced" and "married" refer to current marital state, not history. On the other hand, I think they continued to refer to Wallis as a divorcée even after she was married to Edward.VIII, but possibly that was out of spite.

    – Cascabel
    8 hours ago
















1












1








1


1






Can the term divorcée apply if a woman has not only divorced, but subsequently remarried? The definitions I have perused do not address the matter, but I would think the answer is "no."










share|improve this question














Can the term divorcée apply if a woman has not only divorced, but subsequently remarried? The definitions I have perused do not address the matter, but I would think the answer is "no."







meaning






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 8 hours ago









Chuck BumgardnerChuck Bumgardner

463 bronze badges




463 bronze badges








  • 2





    That sounds like it would be very confusing if she has already remarried. "Divorced" and "married" refer to current marital state, not history. On the other hand, I think they continued to refer to Wallis as a divorcée even after she was married to Edward.VIII, but possibly that was out of spite.

    – Cascabel
    8 hours ago
















  • 2





    That sounds like it would be very confusing if she has already remarried. "Divorced" and "married" refer to current marital state, not history. On the other hand, I think they continued to refer to Wallis as a divorcée even after she was married to Edward.VIII, but possibly that was out of spite.

    – Cascabel
    8 hours ago










2




2





That sounds like it would be very confusing if she has already remarried. "Divorced" and "married" refer to current marital state, not history. On the other hand, I think they continued to refer to Wallis as a divorcée even after she was married to Edward.VIII, but possibly that was out of spite.

– Cascabel
8 hours ago







That sounds like it would be very confusing if she has already remarried. "Divorced" and "married" refer to current marital state, not history. On the other hand, I think they continued to refer to Wallis as a divorcée even after she was married to Edward.VIII, but possibly that was out of spite.

– Cascabel
8 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5














The Cambridge online dictionary defines divorcee as




a man or a woman who is divorced and who has not married again (in the UK)




and




a woman who is divorced and who has not married again (in the US)




so, according to the Cambridge online dictionary, a woman (or a man in the UK) ceases to be a divorcee when they marry again. This makes sense since their marital status (as given when they fill in a form) changes from "divorced" to "married".



Admittedly Merriam Webster does not make the distinction between a person who is divorced and remarried and a person who has remarried but they make no statement either way while Cambridge make a definite statement. It seems that a remarried person is no longer a divorcee any more than a remarried widow is still a widow after her remarriage.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    The trouble is that a remarried widow is still a widow. It's her widowhood which validates her second marriage. And if she wasn't a widow any more, then no-one could be widowed twice -- which is obviously a nonsense.

    – Andrew Leach
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    Well, I think we'd have to distinguish between status -- here, "widow" -- and event -- here, "being widowed". If a woman is widowed, then remarries, her status is no longer that of a "widow" (which by definition is someone whose husband has dies and who has not remarried -- so I have to disagree that "a remarried widow is still a widow"), even though the event of "having being widowed" still obtains. Thus, if she loses her second husband, and regains the status of "widow," she can be said to have been "twice widowed."

    – Chuck Bumgardner
    1 hour ago



















2














I think the answer is yes.



The fact that you have remarried doesn't erase the fact that you were divorced. And you remain divorced from your first spouse: that is what validates your second marriage.



Note that an argument substituting single doesn't work: yes, you were single, and now that you're married you're no longer single; but to say you are invalidates your marriage.



In most cases, the fact of divorce ceases to be socially important following a remarriage, which is why divorcees are unlikely nowadays to be referred to as such. Cascabel's example of the Duchess of Windsor is a counter-example: in her case [which was of her time] her divorce continued to be socially notable. But the fact that a divorce may not be socially notable doesn't erase it entirely.






share|improve this answer


























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "97"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f506499%2fcan-the-term-divorc%25c3%25a9e-apply-if-a-woman-has-not-only-divorced-but-subsequently-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    5














    The Cambridge online dictionary defines divorcee as




    a man or a woman who is divorced and who has not married again (in the UK)




    and




    a woman who is divorced and who has not married again (in the US)




    so, according to the Cambridge online dictionary, a woman (or a man in the UK) ceases to be a divorcee when they marry again. This makes sense since their marital status (as given when they fill in a form) changes from "divorced" to "married".



    Admittedly Merriam Webster does not make the distinction between a person who is divorced and remarried and a person who has remarried but they make no statement either way while Cambridge make a definite statement. It seems that a remarried person is no longer a divorcee any more than a remarried widow is still a widow after her remarriage.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      The trouble is that a remarried widow is still a widow. It's her widowhood which validates her second marriage. And if she wasn't a widow any more, then no-one could be widowed twice -- which is obviously a nonsense.

      – Andrew Leach
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      Well, I think we'd have to distinguish between status -- here, "widow" -- and event -- here, "being widowed". If a woman is widowed, then remarries, her status is no longer that of a "widow" (which by definition is someone whose husband has dies and who has not remarried -- so I have to disagree that "a remarried widow is still a widow"), even though the event of "having being widowed" still obtains. Thus, if she loses her second husband, and regains the status of "widow," she can be said to have been "twice widowed."

      – Chuck Bumgardner
      1 hour ago
















    5














    The Cambridge online dictionary defines divorcee as




    a man or a woman who is divorced and who has not married again (in the UK)




    and




    a woman who is divorced and who has not married again (in the US)




    so, according to the Cambridge online dictionary, a woman (or a man in the UK) ceases to be a divorcee when they marry again. This makes sense since their marital status (as given when they fill in a form) changes from "divorced" to "married".



    Admittedly Merriam Webster does not make the distinction between a person who is divorced and remarried and a person who has remarried but they make no statement either way while Cambridge make a definite statement. It seems that a remarried person is no longer a divorcee any more than a remarried widow is still a widow after her remarriage.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      The trouble is that a remarried widow is still a widow. It's her widowhood which validates her second marriage. And if she wasn't a widow any more, then no-one could be widowed twice -- which is obviously a nonsense.

      – Andrew Leach
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      Well, I think we'd have to distinguish between status -- here, "widow" -- and event -- here, "being widowed". If a woman is widowed, then remarries, her status is no longer that of a "widow" (which by definition is someone whose husband has dies and who has not remarried -- so I have to disagree that "a remarried widow is still a widow"), even though the event of "having being widowed" still obtains. Thus, if she loses her second husband, and regains the status of "widow," she can be said to have been "twice widowed."

      – Chuck Bumgardner
      1 hour ago














    5












    5








    5







    The Cambridge online dictionary defines divorcee as




    a man or a woman who is divorced and who has not married again (in the UK)




    and




    a woman who is divorced and who has not married again (in the US)




    so, according to the Cambridge online dictionary, a woman (or a man in the UK) ceases to be a divorcee when they marry again. This makes sense since their marital status (as given when they fill in a form) changes from "divorced" to "married".



    Admittedly Merriam Webster does not make the distinction between a person who is divorced and remarried and a person who has remarried but they make no statement either way while Cambridge make a definite statement. It seems that a remarried person is no longer a divorcee any more than a remarried widow is still a widow after her remarriage.






    share|improve this answer













    The Cambridge online dictionary defines divorcee as




    a man or a woman who is divorced and who has not married again (in the UK)




    and




    a woman who is divorced and who has not married again (in the US)




    so, according to the Cambridge online dictionary, a woman (or a man in the UK) ceases to be a divorcee when they marry again. This makes sense since their marital status (as given when they fill in a form) changes from "divorced" to "married".



    Admittedly Merriam Webster does not make the distinction between a person who is divorced and remarried and a person who has remarried but they make no statement either way while Cambridge make a definite statement. It seems that a remarried person is no longer a divorcee any more than a remarried widow is still a widow after her remarriage.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 6 hours ago









    BoldBenBoldBen

    8,37713 silver badges25 bronze badges




    8,37713 silver badges25 bronze badges








    • 1





      The trouble is that a remarried widow is still a widow. It's her widowhood which validates her second marriage. And if she wasn't a widow any more, then no-one could be widowed twice -- which is obviously a nonsense.

      – Andrew Leach
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      Well, I think we'd have to distinguish between status -- here, "widow" -- and event -- here, "being widowed". If a woman is widowed, then remarries, her status is no longer that of a "widow" (which by definition is someone whose husband has dies and who has not remarried -- so I have to disagree that "a remarried widow is still a widow"), even though the event of "having being widowed" still obtains. Thus, if she loses her second husband, and regains the status of "widow," she can be said to have been "twice widowed."

      – Chuck Bumgardner
      1 hour ago














    • 1





      The trouble is that a remarried widow is still a widow. It's her widowhood which validates her second marriage. And if she wasn't a widow any more, then no-one could be widowed twice -- which is obviously a nonsense.

      – Andrew Leach
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      Well, I think we'd have to distinguish between status -- here, "widow" -- and event -- here, "being widowed". If a woman is widowed, then remarries, her status is no longer that of a "widow" (which by definition is someone whose husband has dies and who has not remarried -- so I have to disagree that "a remarried widow is still a widow"), even though the event of "having being widowed" still obtains. Thus, if she loses her second husband, and regains the status of "widow," she can be said to have been "twice widowed."

      – Chuck Bumgardner
      1 hour ago








    1




    1





    The trouble is that a remarried widow is still a widow. It's her widowhood which validates her second marriage. And if she wasn't a widow any more, then no-one could be widowed twice -- which is obviously a nonsense.

    – Andrew Leach
    5 hours ago





    The trouble is that a remarried widow is still a widow. It's her widowhood which validates her second marriage. And if she wasn't a widow any more, then no-one could be widowed twice -- which is obviously a nonsense.

    – Andrew Leach
    5 hours ago




    1




    1





    Well, I think we'd have to distinguish between status -- here, "widow" -- and event -- here, "being widowed". If a woman is widowed, then remarries, her status is no longer that of a "widow" (which by definition is someone whose husband has dies and who has not remarried -- so I have to disagree that "a remarried widow is still a widow"), even though the event of "having being widowed" still obtains. Thus, if she loses her second husband, and regains the status of "widow," she can be said to have been "twice widowed."

    – Chuck Bumgardner
    1 hour ago





    Well, I think we'd have to distinguish between status -- here, "widow" -- and event -- here, "being widowed". If a woman is widowed, then remarries, her status is no longer that of a "widow" (which by definition is someone whose husband has dies and who has not remarried -- so I have to disagree that "a remarried widow is still a widow"), even though the event of "having being widowed" still obtains. Thus, if she loses her second husband, and regains the status of "widow," she can be said to have been "twice widowed."

    – Chuck Bumgardner
    1 hour ago













    2














    I think the answer is yes.



    The fact that you have remarried doesn't erase the fact that you were divorced. And you remain divorced from your first spouse: that is what validates your second marriage.



    Note that an argument substituting single doesn't work: yes, you were single, and now that you're married you're no longer single; but to say you are invalidates your marriage.



    In most cases, the fact of divorce ceases to be socially important following a remarriage, which is why divorcees are unlikely nowadays to be referred to as such. Cascabel's example of the Duchess of Windsor is a counter-example: in her case [which was of her time] her divorce continued to be socially notable. But the fact that a divorce may not be socially notable doesn't erase it entirely.






    share|improve this answer




























      2














      I think the answer is yes.



      The fact that you have remarried doesn't erase the fact that you were divorced. And you remain divorced from your first spouse: that is what validates your second marriage.



      Note that an argument substituting single doesn't work: yes, you were single, and now that you're married you're no longer single; but to say you are invalidates your marriage.



      In most cases, the fact of divorce ceases to be socially important following a remarriage, which is why divorcees are unlikely nowadays to be referred to as such. Cascabel's example of the Duchess of Windsor is a counter-example: in her case [which was of her time] her divorce continued to be socially notable. But the fact that a divorce may not be socially notable doesn't erase it entirely.






      share|improve this answer


























        2












        2








        2







        I think the answer is yes.



        The fact that you have remarried doesn't erase the fact that you were divorced. And you remain divorced from your first spouse: that is what validates your second marriage.



        Note that an argument substituting single doesn't work: yes, you were single, and now that you're married you're no longer single; but to say you are invalidates your marriage.



        In most cases, the fact of divorce ceases to be socially important following a remarriage, which is why divorcees are unlikely nowadays to be referred to as such. Cascabel's example of the Duchess of Windsor is a counter-example: in her case [which was of her time] her divorce continued to be socially notable. But the fact that a divorce may not be socially notable doesn't erase it entirely.






        share|improve this answer













        I think the answer is yes.



        The fact that you have remarried doesn't erase the fact that you were divorced. And you remain divorced from your first spouse: that is what validates your second marriage.



        Note that an argument substituting single doesn't work: yes, you were single, and now that you're married you're no longer single; but to say you are invalidates your marriage.



        In most cases, the fact of divorce ceases to be socially important following a remarriage, which is why divorcees are unlikely nowadays to be referred to as such. Cascabel's example of the Duchess of Windsor is a counter-example: in her case [which was of her time] her divorce continued to be socially notable. But the fact that a divorce may not be socially notable doesn't erase it entirely.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 7 hours ago









        Andrew LeachAndrew Leach

        81.3k8 gold badges159 silver badges260 bronze badges




        81.3k8 gold badges159 silver badges260 bronze badges






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f506499%2fcan-the-term-divorc%25c3%25a9e-apply-if-a-woman-has-not-only-divorced-but-subsequently-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

            Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

            Nicolae Petrescu-Găină Cuprins Biografie | Opera | In memoriam | Varia | Controverse, incertitudini...