Only Connect Gave a Family Law Answer That Sounded Perfectly Reasonable — Lawyers Immediately Started Shouting at Their TVs
Only Connect is famous for questions that leave viewers scratching their heads.
But one round produced a very different reaction when family lawyers watching at home immediately spotted a problem with an answer Victoria Coren Mitchell accepted as correct.
The Godyn family were trying to identify the connection between a series of apparently unrelated clues.
They were shown:
Desertion
Adultery
Unreasonable behaviour
The team confidently buzzed in with:
Grounds for divorce.
Victoria accepted it.
For many viewers, that probably seemed perfectly straightforward.
For lawyers watching, however, it was enough to have them shouting at the television.
Lawyers Immediately Challenged the Answer
Family lawyer Richard Lumb was among those who objected on Twitter, arguing that the terminology used by the programme wasn’t technically correct.
And he wasn’t alone.
Other members of the legal profession joined the reaction, turning what looked like a routine Only Connect connection into an unexpectedly technical debate over divorce law.
The issue was essentially one of legal precision.
Although adultery, unreasonable behaviour and desertion were commonly discussed in connection with divorce proceedings, lawyers objected to describing them simply as separate legal “grounds for divorce.”
The accepted answer might have worked perfectly well for an ordinary quiz contestant.
For specialists, it wasn’t precise enough.
The Fourth Clue Made the Connection Even Clearer
Wrong answer! There is only one ground for divorce, the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. These are the “facts”, one of which has to be proved to establish the irretrievable breakdown. @VictoriaCoren pic.twitter.com/AdoSsXBM99
— Richard Lumb (@rimalu35) September 27, 2021
Lumb wasn’t the only one to shout at the telly, it appears:
I was watching whilst drafting Replies on a divorce bill so I WAS SHOUTING!
— Jon Lord (@LordJon1) September 27, 2021
The exchange caught the attention of Coren Mitchell, who replied:
The clues are all still in a connected group though, right? The question works, it’s just that the caption should’ve been worded differently? @OnlyConnectQuiz @QuizQuizQuiz
— Victoria Coren Mitchell (@VictoriaCoren) September 28, 2021
Lumb agreed: ‘Exactly. Pedantry perhaps but guaranteed to stir the lawyers on Twitter into indignant action.’
Coren Mitchell apologised:
But sorry for that misleading shorthand; should have been put differently.
— Victoria Coren Mitchell (@VictoriaCoren) September 28, 2021
Had the team waited, they would also have seen the fourth clue:
2 years separation with consent, 5 years without consent
That completed the group and made the intended connection unmistakable.
But it didn’t make the lawyers any happier with the wording of the accepted answer.
The discussion eventually caught the attention of Victoria herself.
Rather than ignoring the legal objections, the host responded to the criticism online.
Lumb acknowledged that the disagreement might appear pedantic but joked that it was virtually guaranteed to provoke indignant lawyers on Twitter.
Victoria subsequently apologised.
A Classic Only Connect Problem — With an Unusual Twist
Usually, arguments surrounding Only Connect concern whether a connection is too obscure, whether a contestant deserved a point or whether another answer should also have been accepted.
This time, viewers had little difficulty understanding what the contestants meant.
The controversy came from something far more specific: whether the terminology itself was legally accurate enough to deserve the point.
It created exactly the sort of debate the notoriously precise quiz can inspire.
The Godyn family saw desertion, adultery and unreasonable behaviour and quickly identified the theme Victoria was looking for.
They got their point.
But somewhere beyond the studio, family lawyers were already reaching for their keyboards.
One seemingly simple answer was enough to turn an Only Connect round into a legal argument — and even Victoria Coren Mitchell eventually conceded that the lawyers had a point.