Author Topic: "Relative" on the census  (Read 1771 times)

Offline brigidmac

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Computer incompetent but stiil trying
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #18 on: Saturday 21 April 18 03:59 BST (UK) »
Ghost
1920 censuses are already available in usa if she is there

If ive inderstood correctly she does have siblings and you know both parents names
...

Good luck unravelling this ... 
Roberts,Fellman.Macdermid MCDERMID McDiarmid Gardner Jones ,Bloch,Irvine,Hallis Stevenson ,McKay

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 Rosinish

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 9,122
  • PASSED & PAST (Speciality - South Uist, Inverness)
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #19 on: Saturday 21 April 18 05:03 BST (UK) »
Two things I want to clarify:

1.) The widower had lots of relations.  Lots of siblings (some geographically closer and some more distant).  Lots of first cousins (somewhat more distant).  Many possible places to put the child. 
2.) The household couple where the "relation" was staying in 1911 were not godparents to the child.

Two things I want to ask:

1.) 'Widower', name/age/place/references?

2.) 'Household couple', names/ages/place/references?

I've said this before, we're amateur Genealogists not mind readers, we don't have crystal balls but what we do have is the ability to research on info. provided whether it turns up anything or nothing, at least it will have been explored with relative (pardon the pun) info. provided which in this case is not forthcoming sadly for yourself (not the people who could/would/be willing to help you) with resources you may not have access to yourself?  ::)

Annie
South Uist, Inverness-shire, Scotland:- Bowie, Campbell, Cumming, Currie, MacDonald, MacInnes, MacIntyre, MacKinnon, Steele, Walker

Ireland:- Cullen, Flannigan (Derry), Donahoe/Donaghue (variants) (Cork), McCrate (Tipperary), Mellon, Tol(l)and (Donegal & Tyrone)

Newcastle-on-Tyne/Durham (Northumberland):- Harrison, Jude, Kemp, Lunn, Mellon, Robson, Stirling

Kettering, Northampton:- MacKinnon

Canada:- Callaghan, MacKinnon, MacPhee

"OLD GENEALOGISTS NEVER DIE - THEY JUST LOSE THEIR CENSUS"

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 Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,551
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #20 on: Saturday 21 April 18 05:30 BST (UK) »
Righto, if you know the names of the child's parents, can you make up a mini tree for that child to see where it leads you?  :-\ ... Or have you already done this?

So the child (what is her name) is staying with either John or Julia's family (which one?) in 1911. But the child is related to the other family (ie. she is living with Julia but is related to John, or she is related to John and she is living with Julia?). Which is it please?

Thanks Sinaan - your brief summary helped me to understand this. I think.  ;)

Yet again, apologies if you have already covered these points, but I am a bit muddled I think.  :-\

Added:

Ghostwheel, what leads you to believe that some or all of "the widower's" children went to the USA?

What is the name of "the widower"? (It is a lot easier to follow if you mention people by name).

Just because you cannot find them in Ireland does not mean they went to America, unless you know something you have not yet mentioned. They may have been adopted and taken new surnames for example, or records may not exist for them, or any rcords may not been transcribed, or may have been lost or damaged, they may have died, they may have moved to Scotland or England ...etc etc.

If you want to reveal their names, ages, places and dates of birth and parent's names (ages, places of death, birth and dates), someone may be able to help you find them.

Offline Ghostwheel

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #21 on: Saturday 21 April 18 05:56 BST (UK) »
I want to be clear here:  I am not looking for names, or others to find connections. 

The story is superfluous and contains too many elements for all but the very motivated (descendants interested in genealogy) to grasp.  The relevant connections are not direct, since none exist.  They are lateral and circumstantial, done looking heavily at the map and searching many, many names.  Marriages between 3rd persons in different townlands with the same maiden names or surnames.  Connecting relevant townlands.  Some with few people living in them.  Some distant from each other. Simply observations about who lived in x townland and who didn't.  Where so-and-so moved? Where did Mr. Y's bride come from, or Mrs. Z's groom?  Where were their kids born?

Obviously, I erred in giving any details at all.  I was only trying to explain my motivations and the general nature of the type of relationships I was thinking of.  What I wanted was only general impressions about blood relationships, and more specifically about #6 of the following.

Here are my vague impressions:

1.) kin was very important (particularly in the mountains)
2.) marriages were mostly arranged by kin
3.) sometimes people who married were related (2nd to 3rd cousins)
4.) You needed someone who could vouch for the groom or the bride.  Know they weren't from crazy families, violent, lazy, dishonest, thieves or promiscuous.  They were mostly your neighbor, your relative, or the neighbor of your relative.
5.) people with the same name, who interacted were almost certainly related.
6.) the limit of one's known relations was their 3rd cousins.

That last is really the important and relevant one.  It comes from the Church.  The reason (by theory) consanguineous marriages between 2nd and 3rd cousins required dispensations and 4th didn't was the average peasant couldn't possibly be expected to know their 4th cousins.  There are dispensations for 2nd cousins-once-removed and for 3rd cousins.  There are not any for 3rd cousins-once-removed. Because people certainly didn't know all of the last.

There was a limit to the amount of relationships a person could keep track of.  Back then, each person knew all their GG grandparents, but probably not beyond that.  That is exactly why I told the story.  The question at hand really falls on the tail end of #6.

Theory #1: the little kids on the 1911 census, living in the same household, are 3rd cousins.  This is the limit of functional kin relationships.  The older kids are able to grasp how they are related to the little girl, and know who their common ancestors were.  They consider the girl to be kin in the normal way, and when she grows up she will understand that they are kin too.

Vs.

Theory #2: the heads on the 1911 census are 3rd cousins.  They know each other, but the older kids don't understand who the little girl is.  They don't know their common ancestors, and can't possibly grasp something like 3rd cousin-once-removed, since that is not a normal, known relationship in Ireland.  With big families how many 3rd cousins does one have?  A heck of a lot.  Do you know all their kids?  Nope.  Do you know the kids of the ones living within a 2 miles of you?  Maybe.

That's what I wanted:  impressions on theory #1 vs. theory #2.

I think #1 is a lot more likely, but that is my impression.  I've never traced a blood relative who was called a relative or a cousin, so all I have is an impression.  No test.  Others may have experience - that's great.  I'd like to know the most distant, successful trace.

Again, I know they are related.  They are not random people.  They are not neighbors.  They are kin and know it.  The head in one townland had some of his children's baptisms most likely sponsored by the others.  These townlands are close, but not adjacent.  Obviously, the two men understand who their common ancestors were and how they are related.  They are either 2nd cousins or 3rd cousins.  The real question, to my mind, is do the little kids have any bearing on this?  Does it matter if they don't grasp who the little girl is or who their common ancestors are?

Offline Ghostwheel

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #22 on: Saturday 21 April 18 06:07 BST (UK) »
Ruskie, sorry for muddling you.  I've rambled too much, when I should have been trying to cut to the essentials, which is really more about psychology of kin.  Very imprecise and mostly guesswork but still interesting to me.

Brigidmac, I've considered that the 1920 US census might have a clue, but I've kind of written it off.  The name is Brien.  I don't know the names or ages of the people to whom the widower's kids were likely sent (incomplete birth record for that generation)  The most likely destination is NYC.  Second, lesser possibility Boston.  Both with heaps of Briens.   

Offline heywood

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,364
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #23 on: Saturday 21 April 18 06:39 BST (UK) »
Ghost wheel, you have perplexed me but made me think too.
‘Does it matter if they don’t grasp who the little girl is or who their common ancestors are?’
I doubt that it was as important in 1911 as now when we are intent on discovering who we are by tracking our lineage.
My DNA  test shows that there are possible/likely 3rd and 4th cousin matches in US. I can’t trace a common ancestor but recognise their family surnames from the same area but different or sometimes same/adjacent townlands in the Parish. Many from our area emigrated to Scranton area, PA. They lodged with each other on arrival etc but no relationships given.
I checked on one of my family names in 1911. In one townland, there are 240 persons listed. 40 of these have the same surname. From research some had intermarried. Did they know /consider they were related?
As a child in England, we used to have a group of Irish young men visiting regularly. My English mother told me they were ‘related somehow to dad’.
I have since discovered that my grandmother and their gt grandmother were first cousins.
Lastly, in this ramble, my experience is that my Irish relatives don’t particularly call their aunts and uncles with that title but use first names.
In my part of England as a child, neighbours and friends were often addressed as ‘aunt’ out of respect - different customs.
On the other hand, I have been introduced to people in Ireland as ‘cousin’ but the kinship has not been defined as it is distant.
I think sometimes we try to figure things out with all our acquired knowledge and then try to add emotions to people of whom we know very little.
I am not sure if this helps you but I feel as though I do understand a bit better now.  :)

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Rosinish

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 9,122
  • PASSED & PAST (Speciality - South Uist, Inverness)
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #24 on: Saturday 21 April 18 06:58 BST (UK) »
Ghostwheel,

We don't know the 'ins/outs' of your quest but you may be looking at different laws in different countries from what you've provided regarding marriages to relations?

In small communities it would be the norm for people marrying to be related although not siblings.

2nd Cousins & further (from memory) would be acceptible & I believe in some countries/states (today) it's legal for 1st cousins to marry?

However, it may have been an idea from the outset to give the whole intention of your post, your thoughts etc. to save 100 questions which you have avoided?

Chatters ask questions for the reason of trying to help posters but it does help if the poster is upfront to begin with.

From your reply "Reply #21 on: Today at 05:56" this would have been best signified from the outset to save all the questions from others who were willing to help you as they thought you were looking for help  ???

I'm a believer in the old saying (from the outset)...

"Say what you mean and mean what you say" as it avoids confusion all round.

Annie
South Uist, Inverness-shire, Scotland:- Bowie, Campbell, Cumming, Currie, MacDonald, MacInnes, MacIntyre, MacKinnon, Steele, Walker

Ireland:- Cullen, Flannigan (Derry), Donahoe/Donaghue (variants) (Cork), McCrate (Tipperary), Mellon, Tol(l)and (Donegal & Tyrone)

Newcastle-on-Tyne/Durham (Northumberland):- Harrison, Jude, Kemp, Lunn, Mellon, Robson, Stirling

Kettering, Northampton:- MacKinnon

Canada:- Callaghan, MacKinnon, MacPhee

"OLD GENEALOGISTS NEVER DIE - THEY JUST LOSE THEIR CENSUS"

Online Sinann

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,150
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #25 on: Saturday 21 April 18 10:37 BST (UK) »
6.) the limit of one's known relations was their 3rd cousins.

That last is really the important and relevant one.  It comes from the Church.  The reason (by theory) consanguineous marriages between 2nd and 3rd cousins required dispensations and 4th didn't was the average peasant couldn't possibly be expected to know their 4th cousins.  There are dispensations for 2nd cousins-once-removed and for 3rd cousins.  There are not any for 3rd cousins-once-removed. Because people certainly didn't know all of the last.

There was a limit to the amount of relationships a person could keep track of.  Back then, each person knew all their GG grandparents, but probably not beyond that.  That is exactly why I told the story.  The question at hand really falls on the tail end of #6.

I'd say the opposite, they may not have known the exact relationship but they would be aware there was connections between families going back and sideways.
All those grannies warming themselves by the fire would likely be able to list off family trees for their own and their neighbours far better than we could with our charts and sources. Rural communities were dependent on each other from the local women who delivered the babies to the men who dug the graves and everything in between. Most of their conversation was about each other, no celebrity gossip to entertain just what your neighbours were up to and woe betide anyone who spoke ill of someone to the wrong person, if you were new to a area you kept your mouth shut until you worked out how everyone was related. Add to that emigration and you have another reason to know who you might possible be related to who may have gone to America or wherever before you.

My grandmother had a small jug she kept since she was 8 years old, I still have it, she got it from a relation who was impressed she had traveled six miles over the fields to ask a relation (home from America) to be godparent to her new sister. She couldn't tell me how she was related to the woman just that her granny had sent her and said they were related.

Offline aghadowey

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 45,250
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #26 on: Saturday 21 April 18 10:50 BST (UK) »
I agree with Sinann. When I came to live in Aghadowey my new Aunt gave me the same advice she was given by an elderly relative when she married and moved there in 1950- "say nothing about anyone because we're all related."
Many, many times I've heard people say "we're related but don't know how" or even "we always went to their funerals and they always came to ours but I don't know how we are connected."
It gets even more complicated when husband and wife are from the same area and you get connections through various marriages.
My father-in-law's cousin married my mother-in-law's uncle so that their children were mother-in-law's first cousins but father-in-law's 1st cousins once removed. When my in-law's married the 'old people' said there were [at least] two previous intermarriages between the families. Mother-in-law's grandfather (born in Derry City) was orphaned as a child and brought to Aghadowey to be raised by father-in-law's family. There had to be a connection but we just don't know what it was.
Please do NOT ask for lookups by Personal Message.