Your opinions, please

[pottoka]

Hello all |wave|

This isn't really a brick wall, but something I'm not sure of, so I'd like to get other genealogists' opinions.

My great-great-grandparents were Henry Hudson, born Osmaston, Derby, in 1816 and Abigail Winfield, born Stanton-by-Dale, in 1819. They were married in 1839 and had three children, Ann Jane (1839), Charles William (1847) and George (1851). They are on the 1841 Census in Sandiacre, Derbyshire, and on the 1851 Census in Osmaston, Derby.

Then the problems begin ...

On the 1861 Census, Abigail is living in Nottingham and is recorded as being a widow, but there is no record of a death for Henry. Ann is married, Charles is working as a servant and George, poor lad, has been left in the Workhouse in Shardlow.

In 1871, I believe I have tracked down Abigail, still in Nottingham, but living maritally with a William Holt and recorded as Ann Holt. George Hudson is living with them, which reinforces my theory. In 1875 Abigail and William get married, and are duly recorded in Radford, Notts in 1881 under their real names. William died in 1885. Abigail is on the 1891 Census in St Mary, Notts, and then died in October of the same year.

I have done everything I can think of to find Henry Hudson on the 1861 Census with absolutely no luck at all.

However, in 1871, he appears to pop up in Dent, Yorkshire. The age is right, and he was born in Derby. (Osmaston is part of Derby, so that's alright). He is given as being a widower. Then in 1881, there is a Henry Hudson in Shardlow Workhouse, born in Osmaston, but in about 1812.

So ... can I assume that Abigail and Henry agreed to separate after 1851 and to pass themselves off as having lost their respective spouses? Is the Henry of the workhouse "my" Henry?

I'm sorry this is so long |snore| but I wanted to explain properly. I hope you're still with me and willing to give your opinions.

[christanel]

Very nicely put pottoka. Are you seriously doubting that we would be too shy to give an opinion?|laugh1|
All your suppositions sound feasible to me but as we all know that is not proof. The only thing that I can think off to try and help identify Henry in Shardlow workhouse in 1881 is to see if his admission and residency records are available. record.office@derbyshire.gov.uk (record.office@derbyshire.gov.uk)
I have been able to access workhouse records for 3 of my ancestors and they were very revealing but I must admit they were closer to 1900.
good luck
Christina

[JohnN]

Hello Pottoka

I have a similar situation in the 1881 Census.

My ggggrandfather, Thomas Clift, is an inmate of the Stockbridge Workhouse with the status of 'Widower'. Martha, his wife, is still at home, shown as 'Married' but the Head of the household. They were both in their 70s.

It makes sad reading!

[pottoka]

Thank you for your replies. It's true that we can try to imagine the Workhouse but we're probably far off target. I know that it's easy to condemn our ancestors for marrying again so quickly (I'm talking generally here) after a spouse's death, but so often, they had so many children, that a man needed a wife to look after them, and a woman needed a man to bring in a wage - otherwise it was the Workhouse.

I'll try to find out about Henry's admission next time I visit my parents, as I always go to the Records Office in Matlock at the same time.

[ChrisHudson]

Hello,

Henry Hudson is a descendant of mine ( I am a direct line from William Hudson, Henry Hudson's father and Samuel Hudson who was Henry's brother). I believe your assumptions are correct, although I have only a small amount of information for Henry, it does appear that he ended up at the workhouse

I too have no record of him c.1861 census

Chris Hudson

[Lenore]

Hello all |wave|
My great-great-grandparents were Henry Hudson, born Osmaston, Derby, in 1816 and Abigail Winfield, born Stanton-by-Dale, in 1819. They were married in 1839 and had three children, Ann Jane (1839), Charles William (1847) and George (1851).

Hi Pottoka,

Those are long gaps between children in an era when women had children every couple of years. There might have been other pregnancies which didn't result in a birth, or other births you haven't found, but my other thought is long absences by the husband. Gaol? Overseas service in the army? At sea? - and after 1851 I'd be thinking of the gold rushes.

You haven't said what Henry did for a crust. Safe-cracker, highway robbery? :D There is time for a seven year sentence between 1839 and 1847.

Just a thought.

Best wishes,

Lenore

[ChrisHudson]

Henry Hudson was a Labourer according to the 1841 Census and a Railway Labourer in Derby according to the 1871 Census, in 1881 he was an imate in the 'Union Workhouse' in Derby as a Labourer

Chris Hudson

[pottoka]

Does that mean that the gold and enamelled snuff-box with the coat-of-arms and the signet ring with the same arms don't mean we've got blue blood, but are actually ill-gotten gains? |jumphappy

I wish ... but I don't think Henry would have ended up in the Workhouse if he'd had those figments of my imagination to flog or pawn!

Thanks for your input; hello to cousin Chris! |grouphug|

I hadn't thought much about the gaps in ages of Henry's children, perhaps because for the two eldest, at least, I have the baptismal entries, and there are no Hudsons who died young in between. There could well have been still-births, miscarriages or unbaptised babies. To me, that would fit in with a probable poor diet and reduced circumstances: in 1841, Henry is a labourer, as Chris said, supporting a new wife and child. In 1851, he is an "ag. lab", supporting a wife, three kids and his mother of 75 who is a Pauper.

Sometime in the fifties, either he and Abigail agreed to part (I hope) or he scarpered ...

I thought I had had another bright idea |idea| for tracking him down in 1861, by trying "Henery" but no, it was not to be. Perhaps he was sleeping rough that night (more likely him on his own than another lot of mine where the whole family are untraceable ... also in 1861. Does anyone know if there were a lot of alien sightings that spring? :eek:)

Further to my theory that Henry and Abigail were not ... healthy ... even though they lived to be quite old, their children weren't exactly prolific for the times. Ann seems to have had about eight children; it's difficult to know exactly as, for example, there is an Ada aged 19 in 1881, but there is no corresponding birth registration, and she's not around in 1871. (The family were also abducted in 1861 as far as I can see)

Charles had seven children, six daughters (one of which died as a baby) and one son.

As for George, he had had three children by 1881, two of which had died, and after that I can't find George, his wife or the surviving child. (those d*** aliens again |banghead| )

Given the predominance of girls, plus babies who died, the Hudson name descending from Henry pratically died out. So, sins of the fathers?

And Abigail was a bigamist ...