In the course of the year 1920 the Russell's marriage deteriorated with John Russell sometimes being violent, threatening to shoot his wife, or indeed himself, and then becoming tearfully contrite. Over Christmas at the Ampthills' estate there was only one bed available so, unusually, they slept together. It was never known what happened that night but at their divorce case next year Christabel claimed she had become pregnant by her husband but he claimed this was completely impossible. On 17 June 1921 at a session with a clairvoyant, Christabel Russell was told to her astonishment she was five months pregnant. Four days later a doctor confirmed the pregnancy and its timing but after examining her gynecologically said that he would have considered that she was still a virgin. Quite coincidentally, and before his wife had told him of her pregnancy, Russell had been to his solicitor on 21 June to see about obtaining a divorce. On 23 June the couple met and when Christabel told him her news he was delighted, not doubting that he was, mysteriously, the father, and she shared in his pleasure. It was only much later, at the trial for divorce, that she told her husband she was still, technically, a virgin. Lady Ampthill greeted her son's paternity with disbelief and succeeded in persuading Russell that he could not be the father and that Christabel must have been unfaithful to him. They agreed to live separately, she with her mother. By July the Ampthills' solicitors notified Christabel that divorce proceedings would be taken against her on grounds of her adultery and citing two named co-respondents (one of them one of the other naval officers from the 1915 partying) as well as a man unknown. The court case could not commence for almost a year and on 15 October 1921 Christabel gave birth to a boy who was named Geoffrey. She wrote to her husband, adamant the child could only be his and hoping to restore the marriage, but Russell did not reply. The dress shop thrived, partly on account of curious customers but Christabel accepted her solicitors' advice not to be seen out alone with any man. The birth of her child affected her feelings: she wrote to her husband "It is extraordinary how it changes ones outlook having a baby... I feel quite different".
First divorce case The divorce trial commenced in July 1922 and was reported on in detail in the press. Russell's parents hired a very strong legal team including
Sir John Simon and
Douglas Hogg (later the first Lord Hailsham). Christabel and the named co-respondents were also well represented. Simon's opening statement was very aggressive, so much so that, when he claimed that the marriage had not been consummated and that the couple shared a dislike of contraceptives, one of the two women jurors became distressed and needed to be discharged. The judge,
Sir Henry Duke, felt the presence of women on the jury was helpful in such a difficult case, and was relieved when the other woman thought she could continue. One witness said that Christabel had spoken to her of becoming pregnant through "Hunnish scenes" in the bedroom. Christabel's counsel claimed that, as a matter of law deriving from a case in 1777, if a husband and wife are living together at the relevant time, the child is the husband's and any contrary evidence he may give should not be heard by the court. Christabel was asked under cross-examination about the "Hunnish scenes" and she said these referred to occasions of "incomplete relations". The baby was produced for the jury to inspect and the clairvoyant gave evidence that she was a "psychological expert", not a fortune-teller, and her diagnosis was possible by detecting Christabel's "vibrations of the hormones". Eventually, and after the case had lasted 16 days, the jury found Christabel had not committed adultery with either of the two named co-respondents but could not agree concerning the man unknown. The named co-respondents were dismissed from the case, with costs, and the Ampthills had to bear their costs and most of those of Christabel.
King George V was outraged by the press coverage of the case and this added impetus to the existing pressure for press restrictions, so leading to the
1926 Judicial Proceedings Act which banned publication of "any indecent matter" in divorce cases.
Second divorce case and appeals to High Court and House of Lords In 1923 John Russell brought a second divorce case with amended grounds, with
Sir Edward Marshall Hall as counsel, claiming that, in addition, his wife had frequently committed adultery with Edgar Mayer. The details of the Russells' marriage were admitted in evidence all over again giving the press another opportunity to report. The doctor who had originally diagnosed the pregnancy gave evidence that as well as being pregnant she "showed signs of virginity" and this was confirmed by a second doctor giving evidence. Under cross-examination Christabel said that at the time of her marriage she did not know what intercourse was but she did know that men were physically different from women because she had been an art student and had studied anatomy from the age of twelve. When asked by Marshall Hall "Have you never had the smallest curiosity to know what that portion of the man's body was intended by nature for?" she replied "I had not the smallest curiosity". Marshall Hall: "Do you know that that in moments of passion that portion of a man's body gets large?" – "I did not know that". Marshall Hall: "Do you know that now?" – "You have just told me". Despite all this the jury found that she had committed adultery with the man unknown and John was granted a
decree nisi. The outcome of this case caused much surprise in the press and among the involved barristers. Marshall Hall thought that, as in the first case, the "mother fighting for her child" would sway the jury. However her intellectual strength and rapier wit in the witness box may have counted against her. Christabel Russell's appeal against this verdict was unanimously dismissed by the three judges of the
High Court with costs awarded against her. She then appealed to
House of Lords in 1924 where five law lords heard the case: lords
Finlay,
Birkenhead,
Dunedin,
Carson and
Sumner. By a majority they concluded that, under established English law, a husband or wife is not permitted to give evidence that their child, though born in wedlock, is actually illegitimate. Hence the husband's evidence that he had never had intercourse with his wife should not have been allowed in court, the appeal court had been in error, and there had been no admissible evidence of adultery. The upshot was that the couple remained legally married and the child remained the couple's.
Court case concerning legitimacy of Geoffrey Russell Christabel Russell's husband was still denying he was the father of her son Geoffrey so another court case led to the judge,
Rigby Swift, issuing a decree in 1926: "I decree and declare that the petitioner
Geoffrey Denis Erskine Russell is the lawful child of his parents, the Hon. John Russell and Christabel Hulme Russell". ==Later life==