Would a father leave his child behind?

[hilarykellis]

Hi all,

I am trying to sort out the family details of some Anglo-Irish Protestants who moved to Canada in the first half of the 19th century.

My ancestor, Nathaniel Bradley, was born in Ireland about 1812. In 1834, he married Elizabeth Perrin at Newtown Barry, Co. Wexford, Church of Ireland. Nathaniel said he was of "Tullamore," which appears to be in Co. Offaly - however, there were several Bradley families in Newtown Barry parish as well. I can find no baptism for Nathaniel amongst the records I could find online. I know many have been destroyed.

In 1849, Nathaniel went to New York, USA, aboard the Garrick, with his wife and their four sons and infant daughter. His wife died and Nathaniel left New York and settled in Kincardine, Ontario, Canada, by 1850.

In the town as settlers with Nathaniel by 1870 were Samuel Bradley and his wife, and William Bradley, who died in 1862, and his wife Elizabeth. Numerous online trees have assumed that Nathaniel was Samuel's brother and William's son, given the same surname and proximity in this small town.

The issue: William and Elizabeth emigrated in 1818 to Ottawa, Canada, when Nathaniel would have been about 6. And brought all of their children with them. Their firstborn was baptised in 1799 in Co. Wexford, and their lastborn was Samuel (1816).

So why would William and Elizabeth leave Nathaniel behind? We know he was in Ireland from 1834-1849 (his children were all baptised in Ireland in those years, per their death records). Does the fact that they immigrated so long before Nathaniel totally rule them out as his parents, or is this something that happened frequently?

I am currently thinking that perhaps William and Elizabeth were an aunt and uncle, or other close relation, but not parents, given this discrepancy. Does anyone have any insight?

[emmteeyess]

Numerous online trees have assumed that Nathaniel was Samuel's brother and William's son, given the same surname and proximity in this small town.

The issue: William and Elizabeth emigrated in 1818 to Ottawa, Canada, when Nathaniel would have been about 6. And brought all of their children with them.
So why would William and Elizabeth leave Nathaniel behind? We know he was in Ireland from 1834-1849 (his children were all baptised in Ireland in those years, per their death records). Does the fact that they immigrated so long before Nathaniel totally rule them out as his parents, or is this something that happened frequently?

I am currently thinking that perhaps William and Elizabeth were an aunt and uncle, or other close relation, but not parents, given this discrepancy. Does anyone have any insight?

I can only give you 'received wisdom' here and guesswork options - so possibly no help at all!!

First - don't accept assumptions from on-line trees without doing your own checks. That way madness lies!
Next - William and Elizabeth could have left Nathaniel behind for a number of reasons. eg was he too ill to travel at the time and stayed with relatives? At 6 he was a bit young to be an apprentice, but was there some committment he was bound to? - like a relative who promised to train him in due course?
Or was he given over for informal adoption for whatever reason? - possibly a safer option than risking all by emigrateing, again more likely if he was ill (?)
And - Perhaps William and Elizabeth were his aunt and uncle. Can you build up another family, relative to William and Elizabeth that would contain Nathaniel and prove that?

You can only 'flesh' this out by looking deeper at family, dates, baptisms, trades etc. You may need to look further on line for his baptism. (it might be out there even if you haven't found it yet) - or try any local history societies for Tullamore etc., or strike lucky with someone on BritGen.

Cheers, MTS

[Megan Roberts]

The sad truth is that without a diary or a series of letters the reasons can never be uncovered. In my family tree a couple in Pembrokeshire married and their first son was born in late 1855. When they emigrated to Australia in 1857 they left him behind with his mother's sister and father. None of the family in the UK or Australia know why. There are various reasons speculated some of which are similar to those suggested above.

The real tragedy of the story is that he stayed in South Wales, moved to the coal mining area and tried unsuccessfully to set up a business, but went bankrupt. He married, had five children, none of whom lived to see their 2nd birthday, all dying from various contagious diseases, and he died from TB in the same year as the last 2 of the them when he was 35 years old. His parents went on to have another 11 children and his father ended his days in an asylum having been overtaken by religious fervour, not long after his eldest child died.