RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: Silvercup on Tuesday 26 December 17 23:43 GMT (UK)
-
I know that it will be difficult to figure this out but I got some amazing help on my last thread, so here goes!
My gt grandfather was born George William Teagle SMITH on 25/12 1893. On the birth cert his father was Edwin SMITH and his mother Jane SMITH formerly SIMPSON. They married in 1884.
However on the 1901 and 1911 censuses George was living with George Thomas TEAGLE as his adopted son. In 1901 George TEAGLE was married to Rhoda (maiden name SMITH) and by 1911 Rhoda had died and he was remarried to Rosa Eliza.
The story that was passed down through the family is that George TEAGLE was his father but he hated him so took his mother's maiden name Smith. Well Rhoda's maiden name was Smith but she wasn't his mother according to the birth cert!
What's obviously curious is that he was given Teagle as a middle name at birth. Jane Smith appears to be alive on the 1901 census as a widow. I don't know when Edwin Smith died and if that's relevant in any of this.
I guess what I'm looking for is the connection between Jane Simpson / Edwin Smith with George Teagle / Rhoda Smith. I did think that perhaps Edwin and Rhoda were related but I can't find it. Why would a married couple have a child, give him another man's surname as a middle name and then give him to that man for adoption?! What am I missing
-
Hi Silvercup, I just thought I'd put the link to your previous thread in case it helps anyone searching ;)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=784296.0
-
I haven't read the other thread in any detail (too long).
What checking have you done so far into the backgrounds of Edwin Smith and Rhoda Smith to see whether they were related?
I see that Rhoda was 21, daughter of William Smith (farmer) when she married George Thomas Teagle on 6th Dec 1890 in Lambeth.
Am I right in thinking George and Rhoda had no children born to the marriage - or at any rate none who survived?
-
Edwin Smith was a 26 yr old warehouseman, son of Benjamin Smith (decd), hotel proprietor, when he married Jane Simpson at St Mary, Lambeth on 31 July 1884.
-
What was the precise address in Lambeth at which George W T Smith was born in 1893?
Was it Rosetta St? This was Edwin Smith's address at marriage, and he & Jane and their daughter Violet Simpson Smith b 1887 were at 1 Rosetta St with his widowed mother Rhoda in 1891.
Alternatively Edwin and Jane appear to have spent time at 21 Meadow Place; this was the address on the baptisms of their daughters Ethel Simpson Smith (1885) and Violet Simpson Smith (1887).
Edwin was born in Bath per 1891; likely birth reg is Sep qtr 1858 Bath.
-
No formal system of adoption existed until 1927. A family would often take in and care for an orphan and also look after a child of someone fallen on hard times, ...though not always willingly!
-
Who was the informant on George William Teagle Smith's birth certificate?
-
George W T Smith is recorded as Smith in 1901 and 1911, so ignore family tales about not using Teagle because Smith was his original surname which he has kept. George Teagle could have had him recorded with surname Teagle, but he is down as Smith.
Possibly given Teagle as middle name because family were close, and George Teagle and wife offered to look after him - no children of their own. The Teagle name being used to indicate the proposed link.
-
It’s curious that there is a Rhoda Smith on both sides of this story - his adoptive mum was born Smith 1870 At Daglingworth glos and his true father Edwin’s mum was Rhoda Budgett b 1834 nunney somerset, married Benjamin Smith of Walcott, bath.
So apart from the Smiths all coming from the West Country into Lambeth, as well as George teagle, I don’t see any blood or marriage connection for the Smiths.
Jane Simpson’s folks are x Ireland, per 1871 census at woolwich.
Giving a child to another childless couple happened in my husband’s family - his ggm to her aunt, and she was a replacement for her elder brother who got to come back into the family when he was old enough to work. Sad life for ggm who had a wealthier home to grow up in but was never able to get past feeling abandoned by her own mum.
Salute,
Janelle
-
Thanks for the replies.
George W T Smith was born at 42 Thorne St. His mother Jane Smith was the informant at the same address.
I am not aware of George and Rhoda Teagle having any children of their own. I've just noticed that their address on their marriage cert in 1890 was 1 Thorne St.
-
I do find it strange.
There was another daughter.
Sibyl Marion Smith
June 1895 Lambeth
mother Simpson
Sybil Smith, 5, born Lambeth, is with her mother Jane Smith (visitor, widow, 42, barmaid, born Woolwich) at 80 Stewarts Road, Battersea, in 1901 (piece 444 folio 147 page 16)
Where was Violet?
Likely school admission for Violet Smith in Lambeth, 28 April 1896
Born 25 Feb 1887, parent or guardian Mrs Jane Smith, address 122 Wandsworth Rd
I haven't been able to find out when Edwin Smith died. The best match before that school record was in Lambeth, but in the March quarter of 1891, just before the census!
-
Thank you! I had seen Sybil in the 1901 census but hadn't been able to find her birth.
I've just found on the electoral register that in 1894 the inhabitant of 42 Thorne Street was George Thomas Teagle! So they were all living together it seems?
-
Good find!
It all seems a bit suspicious?
-
Isn't it just?!
Apparently George Smith always thought that George Teagle was his real father, but he denied it.
It certainly seems possible that he could have been the real father if they were all living together. But then why go to the bother of registering the baby with the Teagle middle name etc and then adopting rather than just admitting from the outset?
-
Hi
If we agree that the Teagle name being given to George suggests an arrangement, then I find it hard to believe that Edwin Smith was still around at the time of the birth. Why would he want his son adopted?
Whether Edwin was George's his father or not, I couldn't say. If not, then Jane told a bit of a fib when registering George's birth!
Even if Edwin wasn't really the father (and we don't know that!), it doesn't necessarily mean that George Teagle was. What would Rhoda have made of it all?
The problem is that we don't know for sure what happened to Edwin after 1891.
We can add him to an ever growing missing persons list!
Sybil Smith - two school records for her in Wandsworth. Date of birth 6.6.95. Mother Jane at 80 Stewarts Rd.
The second one says that she was withdrawn from school, 14.2.02, In Workhouse
There's a record of her going to the school at Anerley.
In the London Poor Law Records on ancestry
https://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=1557
Right hand side, under "Browse this collection"
Borough Wandsworth, Union Wandsworth, record type Register of Children,
scroll down to North Surrey School District, Anerley School: Register of children, 1885-1904
images 361, 362
Are you able to get hold of this?
Because there is some stuff written, may be useful, I think it relates to her but the entries on the pages are a bit cramped up.
John
-
An aunt, Mrs Simpson, in Lambeth Palace Road, is mentioned.
I think still at Anerley in the census
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XW8P-YH1
-
Wow, thanks. I can't decipher all of it but it looks like -
aunt Mrs Budden died
mother J? in Smith went and ??? in 1891 some little time after
aunt Mrs Simpson 43 Lambeth Palace Road
can't make out - Southwark -
husband ? (Edwin?) not heard from him since
lives with a man for some time
left her before birth of this child
? (George?) doubtful if ever married
Wow! Is there anybody who is good at deciphering handwriting who could transcribe this?
-
Agree that it says that Edwin not heard from - so not necessarily dead, and father of Sybil also left her.
Trying to do a small attachment - no success.
-
Mother Jane Smith in Infy* [Infirmary]. Husband Edwin Smith went to ?? in 1891, not heard from him since some little time after. Lived with a man for some time - left her before the birth of this child.
Aunt Mrs Simpson 43? Lambeth Palace Road says doubtful if ever married.
Aunt Mrs Budden 19 West St, St George's Rd?
*Annotated: Died.
-
silly me, I was trying to read it as 2 separate pages rather than across.
so do we know when this entry was made, that Jane had died?
Interesting that it says Edwin went somewhere in 1891, as he was supposed to have fathered George in 1893!
-
Jane's death?
Deaths September quarter 1902
Jane Smith age 44 Wandsworth
-
so is it possible that Edwin wasn't George's father at all (if that entry is correct about him leaving in 1891) but Jane gave his details as the father as they were still married? didn't the father have to be present when registering the birth?
-
so is it possible that Edwin wasn't George's father at all (if that entry is correct about him leaving in 1891) but Jane gave his details as the father as they were still married? didn't the father have to be present when registering the birth?
No, a married father did not have to be present at the registration.
I would think it entirely possible that Edwin was not George's father (and, given the inclusion of both "George" and "Teagle" in the child's given names, entirely possible that George Teagle was).
It is frustrating not to be able to discern where Edwin is supposed to have gone. The Mar qtr 1891 death registration in Wandsworth is niggling - could he have died shortly before the census, whilst away from home, & his family somehow were never traced and told of his death? If so it would obviously mean that they were wrong to include him in the census return, but stranger things have happened.
Edwin's occupation as recorded in the 1891 census is commercial traveller, which no doubt would have involved being away from home at times.
-
I wish I could read that word in the school entry - looks like Loud?!
-
I first read it as Lond (short for London) but they lived in Battersea which was very much within the sprawl of London by 1891.
-
re his occupation - on George's birth certificate he is recorded as upholstery salesman so yes I agree could be away from home. so they may have thought he was off flogging carpets but he was actually dead :-\
-
ok so surmising that George Teagle may have been the real father after all, and knew from the outset that he and Rhoda would be adopting the baby, hence the name - why wouldn't he have just been named on the birth certificate? Did a couple have to be married for the father to be named? Sorry, am new to this!
-
We are obviously having to speculate and surmise on these unusual facts, but if George was the natural father that doesn't automatically mean the "adoption" was pre-planned. For all we know George may have been Jane's cohabiting lover* who left her (to go back to Rhoda?) in 1895ish before Sybil's birth. If so, perhaps it was at that stage or even later that Jane prevailed upon George to take responsibility for his natural son and bring him up?
*Hence, perhaps, the electoral roll showing George Teagle's name at 42 Thorne St in 1894, the same address where George junior had been born in December 1893.
-
That's a good theory. So maybe Teagle was Sybil's father too and the man mentioned as leaving before her birth.
It's interesting that both Ethel (who I don't think survived past infancy) and Violet were both baptised but I can't find baptisms for either George or Sybil.
I wish women had the vote at this point and were on the electoral registers too!
-
What year was it that surnames began to be put on birth certificates? I'm sure previously there was no space for surname for the baby, just first name(s) and full name of parents - so he may have got the mothers surname by default
-
What an interesting thread & some good work going on!
Iolaus, your theory sounds good!
I've just pulled out a 1901 birth (closest off the top of my head to dates on this query) to a married couple...
My g/mother was recorded with forename & middle name, no surname.
Her father's name & surname in a separate column then another column with mother's forename & marital surname then formerly maiden name.
Her mother registered the birth (not her father)!
Annie
-
Birth register entries only show a surname for the child from 1969 onwards.
Earlier entries are indexed under the parent's surnames, according to a number of rules.
1) which index you are looking at (FreeBMD and GRO use different rule sets).
2) whether the father is named on the entry.
3) Whether the parents are married (to each other) - the informant column usually tells you that.
-
ok so surmising that George Teagle may have been the real father after all, and knew from the outset that he and Rhoda would be adopting the baby, hence the name - why wouldn't he have just been named on the birth certificate? Did a couple have to be married for the father to be named? Sorry, am new to this!
If a woman was married, the husband was automatically assumed to be the father of the child -- he did not have to be present at registration
If a woman was unmarried (ie child was illegitimate), the father had to be present at registration to be named on the certificate. If the father was not present, no father's name could be entered, even if the father fully acknowledged the child
So in this case, it sounds as tho George Teagle was the father, but as Jane was officially still married to the absent Edwin, it was Edwin's name on the certificate
-
If a woman was married, the husband was automatically assumed to be the father of the child --
Sort of, but not exactly - a child born to a married couple can be registered by either parent, without the other being present, and so a married woman CAN always name her husband as the father of her child and have his name shown on the register entry, but if she does so knowing that to be false (e.g. he has been in prison for the last 12 months) then she commits perjury.
-
*2019*
an update of sorts / reopening the case!
I recently ordered Sybil Smith's birth certificate to see who was listed as father. She was born 6th June 1895.
It was Edwin Smith! Now given all the evidence - his possible 1891 death (that death cert is next on my list) and notes on the workhouse records that he hadn't been heard of since 1891, how likely is it that he actually was Sybil's father? Not very I don't think. But this means that Jane lied on both birth registrations, quite naughty if so.
And of course I don't know whether William and Sybil had the same father, was Teagle one, both or neither's father...I wish I could solve this mystery!