Robert Shelton Mackenzie - what shall I do?

MythicalMarian · 13-11-2009, 12:09 PM

Well, the plot is thickening a bit here. I have been tracing Harriett and Robert's daughter Violet May Mackenzie and there is no doubt that she was left behind with her father in the States. I have traced her down through the US censuses now to 1910! She never married. But in 1925 I find her and her step-sister Marion Mackenzie sailing into England for a very short stay on the Dreadnought, and then going back out to New York again a couple of weeks later on the Ohio (I think it was, off the top of my head - haven't got the scan in front of me just at this mo)

I need to get to the bottom of just why Harriett would leave her daughter in the clutches of Robert if he was such a devil! After Robert's death, I find Violet still living with widowed Adelaide and she states quite clearly that Violet is her step-daughter. It's not as if Harriett was short of money herself - her family were very comfortable and her father was providing for her, so I'm sure she wouldn't have found little Violet a burden.

Why is it, folks, that whenever we uncover a new doc, it opens up a whole new can of worms and makes even more work for us?

Ah...don't we just love it!

Wirral · 13-11-2009, 12:45 PM

I've just found a mother & son who both divorced. In the mother's case, her brother-in-law was the co-respondent. They didn't marry until nearly 20 years later - the same quarter as the husband/brother died!

Harriett may have had no choice in leaving Violet with her husband. In the 19thC a child would have been the "property" of the father, not the mother.

MythicalMarian · 13-11-2009, 1:58 PM

Originally Posted by Wirral

I've just found a mother & son who both divorced. In the mother's case, her brother-in-law was the co-respondent. They didn't marry until nearly 20 years later - the same quarter as the husband/brother died!

Harriett may have had no choice in leaving Violet with her husband. In the 19thC a child would have been the "property" of the father, not the mother.

Fair comment, Wirral - I wasn't thinking of that. Custody of Violet wasn't mentioned in the divorce, but then - as you say - in those days it perhaps wasn't the issue it is today. Harriett also stayed only five weeks in the States when she went out there, so perhaps she thought the journey too much for little Violet to go home again - who knows. I've found them both going out there, but so far can't find the passenger list for Harriett's return. I'll keep digging.