Marriage isn't just about love, there is a strong domestic convenience element to it. In times of economic turmoil, people will think twice about a breakup. Any number of people have remained in poor relationships for decades because of there desire for home comfort, even when the economy is thriving.

Is it surprising that couples separate at a later age when the age at marriage goes up? Similarly you will end up having fewer divorces over time when the inclination to marry drops all the time. Nothing new, is it?
Where are the data about alternative solutions to marriage: LAT or cohabitation?

@mikedow - agree on the point of economic recession.

Aside from making one think twice, the number of apppealing alternatives (solvent, monied, well-employed, no stresss) drops off too presumably.

We have the adulterers but no information on how many others had another partner lined up, be it visibly or not.

What would happen if the graph would have been going upwards without a break?

Rain is followed by sunshine.

Interesting to compare these to the marriage statistics too.

Indeed it is. Notice that the Median duration of marriage at divorce is pretty constant over the past 5 years. A quick check of the marriage statistics show that marriage rates were dropping around 11 years ago and marriages in these years (assuming some variation of normal distribution) will be contributing most to the divorce rate now.

The divorce rate per thousand fell from 13 to 11.5 from 1998 to 2008 (a fall of 11.5%) yet the marriage data records 272,536 marriages in 1997 compared with 351,761 in 1987 (a fall of 22.5%). There could be something in the idea that the most stable relationships are the ones which have continued to be marked by marriage. In other words, those marriages which still take place when the numbers are lower have a lower divorce rate.

Of course that proves nothing in the marriage tax break debate. If tax incentives for marriage are increased it may encourage some co-habitees to wed even if the chances of being together in ten years time for those couples are much the same whether they marry or not.

Oh, and photo caption

Divorce statistics show less married couples are splitting up

. No, fewer married couples are splitting up.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

I blame the tories.

I think statements like this don't really mean much:

• The number of divorces in England and Wales in 2010 was 119,589, an increase of 4.9% since 2009, when there were 113,949 divorces

Unless there is a specific cause for a yearly shift in rates e,g, change in legislation, this could just be noise. It is the long term trend that you are after.

That's there too with the divorce rate. We just like to give everyone all the numbers

Can you explain your 'Cause' chart better. For the wife column/adultery row does this mean 'where the wife committed adultery' or 'where the wife sought divorce because the husband committed adultery'?

I guess what I'm saying is that if you check both charts (rate and total number) there are similar annual spikes followed by dips, 2009 -> 2010 could easily be one of those. I think it's difficult to draw any conclusions from a change between two years. (Disclaimer: I haven't the foggiest idea on analysing this sort of stuff so I could be completely wrong).

Taking the long view 2009 looks like a blip - i.e an eccentric figure within the range of statistical variability. 2010 looks pretty much on a long-term trend line.

p.s. I don't want to sound like an embittered critic, I appreciate the data!

I think divorce rates are a fascinating measure, unless of course you are currently going through one.

Get rid of the marriage tax credits - discrimination against a big proportion of the population

A divorce can, and usually does take years. Are these dates of commencement of proceedings or decree nisi or decree absolute? If you're linking it to the economy it could make a big difference.

"Divorce statistics show less married couples are splitting up. Photograph: Mike Kemp/Getty Images"

Divorce statistics show FEWER married couples are splitting up.

Why is everyone making this mistake these days??!!

It's bankers fault.

Study after study shows the #1 thing couples argue about is money. Do recessions up divorce rates - clearly, yes. The recession is bound up the ante a bit.

It'd be nice to see an examination of who initiates divorce - as I understand it, in modern Britain the majority of divorces are initiated by women. Now, question is, is this a product of liberation, or a divorce and family law environment that overly favours women?

It'd be nice to see an examination of who initiates divorce - as I understand it, in modern Britain the majority of divorces are initiated by women. Now, question is, is this a product of liberation, or a divorce and family law environment that overly favours women?

Back in the day it used to be considered good form for a husband to allow his wife to divorce him rather than petitioning her for a divorce. Doubt that is much of a factor these days though.

It is often said that family law here favours women but if that criticism is valid at all it is only in the "big money" cases which are a tiny fraction of divorces.

Most likely it is practicality. It is likely that in the average divorcing couple the husband will be earning more than the wife and most of the couples assets will be in his name. The wife will therefore have less say in the couples finances and will have limited protection against the husband spending assets (except the matrimonial home where there is specific protection). It is far more in her interests than his to regularise the position (especially if she is looking after the children and is seeking maintenance).

I would think that as time goes on the stats will even out.

Divorce rates are up dramatically since 1858? I'm shocked.

I knew this new-fangled "women's emancipation" thing would end in tears.

Actually, it looks like the opposite is true. If you look at the data set, more than 2000 more women filed for divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour in 2010 than 2009. That does include physical and emotional abuse, both of which seem likely to be worse when the abuser is stressed about money or unemployment, but also financial irresponsibility. I can see situations where someone can't actually afford to remain married to a spouse who is accruing debt.

Marangaranga, maintenance only applies in exceptional cases. Child support is, for the most part, arranged by the child support agency. Also, I suspect more women than men will qualify for legal aid to help with the costs of legal advice.

Sorry, the above was in response to mikedow.

"Divorce statistics show fewer married couples are splitting up."

Except the article then goes on to try and demonstrate why this is not the case.

It ain't such a bad thing. Divorce isn't hugely stigmatised anymore. And nor should it be. Sometimes people just grow apart and relationships break down.

People who stay together forever are greatly admired, and I think that's right; when they are still as devoted to one another as they always were. And of course a lot of people should put a hell of a lot of thought into what they're getting into, but it shouldn't be seen as a massive disaster when things fall apart and people part ways. Of course when it comes to children that's when things get really tough.

But as a statistic rising divorce shouldn't be regarded as an awful thing that older generations tut about and say "it weren't like that in my day".

The first chart above is where people get the idea of half of all marriages ending in divorce. But what it really shows is that for each year, an equivalent of half the number of people getting married get divorced - rather than half of all the married people in the country.

No, the assumption is correct - rates can be compared to rates, totals to totals, but comparing rates to totals is invalid unless you know the total duration. If the marriage rate is roughly constant and the divorce rate is roughly half the marriage rate, half of all marriages end in divorce.

In fact, however, the divorce rate is roughly constant since the 1970s and the marriage rate is dropping, which suggests that, allowing for a lag, the divorce rate may be a little more than 50% currently.

it is like Religion, if you quit from one day to the other.There has not been Such.

I suspect the latter, but yes, please clarify Guardian!

Either way, adultery seems to have consistently fallen over the decades. I wonder if it's because we cheat less or if we're just not as bothered about it as we used to be?

Sorry - that could be clearer. It means the 'wife sought divorce on grounds of'. Will clarify the table

There is an old saying

"When poverty comes in the door, love goes out of the window"

Divorce statistics show FEWER married couples are splitting up.

Why is everyone making this mistake these days??!!

its da edukashun, innit.

Surely marriage is, and always will be, the biggest cause of divorce?

Don't get married is the answer.....all the clues are there.

I think that divorce should be made easier for couples without children, and harder for couples with children, as children are the innocent victims of divorce....

Thanks for pointing it out. It makes me wince every time I see/hear that mistake. As for why, it's because they did away with teaching English grammar several decades ago. My friends from abroad can't believe it when I tell them.

It means the 'wife sought divorce on grounds of'. Will clarify the table

On the grounds of their own infidelity or their partner's? :-)

It's all about money. It always is. Marriage is a bad idea.

I would agree with many commenters that the data seems to suggest that divorce rates are falling, not rising. Just another attention grabbing headline.

Strangely never mentioned in cause of divorce - the "wedding show", the wedding itself used as something like a rite of passage for the bride. Too many weddings are treated more like a "prom date", a "quincinera", or a "rite of passage" by the brides. The wedding industry is a billion dollar industry because of precisely this attitude. Many young women see the wedding day as some sort of "fairy-princess" day, where "all their dreams come true". Parents spend thousands of dollars to make the wedding "picture-perfect" like something out of a fairy tale, and the trouble is the groom is the last person considered. It doesn't matter who the groom is so long as the princess "bridezilla" has HER day in the spotlight. Too many "wedding shows" are performed, and there are too few actual real marriages where love and honor and respect and loyalty are more important than what shoes the bride wears. Too many brides treat the wedding like the big dance, the prom, a coming-out party, with all the costly trimmings and a week's paid vacation in the Bahamas or some sort of "Fantasy Island" to boot. When they come back from the high of their social heights and the results of their time in the sun, real life of living with the other person hits them square and they last two months in the real world of life that didn't work out as the fantasy promised. So long as young girls believe in the trappings of the fantasy, there will always be so many divorces as a result. Parents - perhaps you should teach your daughters about real life and real love and real marriage and just say "no" to footing the bill towards their failed fantasy.

Sorry to be pedantic to the pedants but the whole less/fewer was set out as prescriptive rule by the grammarians of the late 18th and early 19th century who frequently ignored usage and sometimes even favoured rarified or less usual grammatical forms.

The Cambridge Distionary of Usage now describes the choice as one of style.

Much like the whole unnecessary debate of split infinitives and the final "good enough for Shakespeare" final retort.

These figures are slightly misleading, as many couples choose to live together rather than get married and there are no figures for those splitting up in these circumstances and indeed, causes for breaking up such as adultery, desertion ,separation and behaviour have no meaning outside of marriage,since no vow has been made.

The table tells us that in 1990, 109,565 women sued for divorce and in 2010 79,124.

This merely tells us that in the twenty year period more women chose to live with someone rather than get married.

That's a great saying and very true.