Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    saw119
    Guest

    Default Unusual Bastards

    I think I have something fairly unusual in my family and was wondering if any members on here cared to share their views on the matter. My ggg grandfather married in 1851 in Sheffield and produced several children with his wife. However, sometime in 1864 he abandoned her and she ended up spending one month in prison for concealement of birth. Anyway, in the 1871 census he has two new children, seemingly by the housekeeper/servant. They are clearly not married as they carry different surnames on the return. The unusual thing comes from the fact that both children arising from this union carry the fathers surname and not the mothers, which I presumed was usual. He dies in 1874 and in the 1881 census she has married but all of his children from his first marriage and the children from their union are still living with her and her new husband. The enumerator was probably a bit confused by this as he labels the eldest 'son of the above wife' even though he is not actually her child! Sorry, longwinded I know and I still haven't managed to adequately convey the subtleties I fear.

  2. #2
    Name well known on Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    4,594

    Default

    Nice conundrum! Were you looking to find various Family members as well as share views? I'm guessing nothing seemed unusual to offspring until much later in their lives. Like when they took up Genealogical pursuits.
    Happy Families
    Wendy
    Count your Blessings, they'll all add up in the end.

  3. #3
    v.wells
    Guest

    Default

    I have found that when the children get married/and/or died that their real birth names were used I'am sure that a lot of children simply didn't know what genie routes they had.

  4. #4
    saw119
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waitabit View Post
    Nice conundrum! Were you looking to find various Family members as well as share views? I'm guessing nothing seemed unusual to offspring until much later in their lives. Like when they took up Genealogical pursuits.
    I have all the family members I need to find. What was stumping me for a while was that I couldn't find the son of this union in the 1911 census. As it turned out he was using both his fathers AND mothers surname! In 1881, 91 & 1901 he was just Woollen but in 1911 he goes and calls himself Woollen Gill!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: