Author Topic: Quashed Removal Order - what does it mean?  (Read 472 times)

Offline benn34

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Quashed Removal Order - what does it mean?
« on: Thursday 15 February 18 14:47 GMT (UK) »
Hi guys,

I wonder if someone can help me please as my brain doesn't seem to want to work today?

I have just received a copy of a removal order for my 5th great grandparents Richard and Mercy Gallop and their illegitimate daughter and it states that the order was confirmed to remove Richard and Mercy and that the order was quashed for the illegitimate child. Does this mean that the daughter wasn't allowed to be moved with the parents? and if that was the case what would of happened to the daughter?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks Ann

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,399
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Quashed Removal Order - what does it mean?
« Reply #1 on: Thursday 15 February 18 15:53 GMT (UK) »
What date was this, please?

Before 1834, illegitimate children were normally deemed to have legal settlement in their parish of birth.

After 1834, illegitimate children normally took their mother’s place of settlement (up to age 16).

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline benn34

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Quashed Removal Order - what does it mean?
« Reply #2 on: Thursday 15 February 18 15:56 GMT (UK) »
What date was this, please?

Before 1834, illegitimate children were normally deemed to have legal settlement in their parish of birth.

After 1834, illegitimate children normally took their mother’s place of settlement (up to age 16).

Hi,

The year was 1795. I dont have any information on the child other than she was 4 months old.

Ann

Offline benn34

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Quashed Removal Order - what does it mean?
« Reply #3 on: Thursday 15 February 18 16:03 GMT (UK) »
The order removal was from Battle to All Saints, Hastings.

Ann

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,399
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Quashed Removal Order - what does it mean?
« Reply #4 on: Thursday 15 February 18 16:27 GMT (UK) »
As it was before 1834, there would normally have been two separate removal orders – one for the mother to be removed to her parish of settlement, and another for the child to be removed to her parish of birth.

It sounds like there had been an appeal, which commonly happened when a parish of birth tried to avoid accepting an illegitimate child. In this case it seems the father was known, so if he admitted paternity and was willing to take responsibility for the child, that would override any need for the child to be removed separately, and the child’s order would be quashed. She would probably have stayed with her parents and been removed with them.

Hope that makes sense?

Offline benn34

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Quashed Removal Order - what does it mean?
« Reply #5 on: Thursday 15 February 18 16:38 GMT (UK) »
As it was before 1834, there would normally have been two separate removal orders – one for the mother to be removed to her parish of settlement, and another for the child to be removed to her parish of birth.

It sounds like there had been an appeal, which commonly happened when a parish of birth tried to avoid accepting an illegitimate child. In this case it seems the father was known, so if he admitted paternity and was willing to take responsibility for the child, that would override any need for the child to be removed, and the child’s order would be quashed. She would probably have stayed with her parents and been removed with them.

Hope that makes sense?

Hi,

That does make sense, thank you so much  :D

I'm glad as well that the daughter stayed with them.

Ann