RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: miwb on Sunday 31 December 17 12:11 GMT (UK)
-
Hi all,
Bit of a strange one this, and it's got me baffled. I always thought that my great grandfather was an only child, his parents married in 1874 and he was born shortly after. By the time of the 1881 census he was living with just his father and there was no sign of his mother, infact I've never found any trace of her again whether it be BMD or census returns. Her husband married again in 1889 so I presumed that she had perhaps died.
A couple of years ago I made a surprising discovery in an old newspaper. The husband's second wife had taken out a court order against him to pay maintenance. However it turned out that he was still legally married to my great grandfather's mother. Not only was he a bigamist but so was she, the court heard that she was still living, had married again and had ten children.
Despite searching I have been unable to find her, her second marriage or any of the ten children she was reported to have had with her second husband.
Names & dates are:
William Coates b. 1852 (West Bromwich) married Matilda Foster b. 1857 (Smethwick) in 1874 at Christ Church, West Bromwich.
Their son, my great grandfather William was born in 1874 (West Bromwich).
William senior married again in 1889 to Lucy Taylor nee Judge.
The newspaper report was dated 1891 and it stated that Matilda claimed that she had left her husband 15 years ago so roughly 1876.
Can anyone help in anyway or suggest anything that would help in my search.
Thanks
-
Hhmm I wonder if Matilda was living in the same area as William? The newspaper report states that he went round to her house and she threw a bucket of water over him.
His address is given as Hargate Lane, West Bromwich.
The paper is dated January 1891 so have you looked to see if William is still at this address in the 1891 census?
It may be worth checking the streets around Hargate Lane to see if Matilda is in the area.
The case was adjourned to the 19th February, so is there another newspaper report relating to this?
-
Hi Girl Guide, thanks for the reply.
I've been unable to find any trace of another report regarding the adjournment date in February. Whether one exists or not I don't currently know.
William had moved from Hargate Lane by the time of the 1891 census but not far away.
I have searched the immediate area but didn't really find any possible answers unless I overlooked something. Will try again.
I was wondering if any records relating to the court case would still exist?
-
If Matilda was living under another name & the '10' children were registered in that name, they would still presumably have her maiden name of Foster registered. I thought that on the free GRO index you may be able to find a pattern of children in the area born with MMN Foster & consistent surname however on second thoughts, you have to search with a surname.
I know you have said you have tried searching but may be worth searching the 1881, 1891, 1901 censuses in the area for a Matilda b 1857 & born Smethwick, seeing if in 1891 or 1901 any of them have a large number of children, then checking any of the children for MMN Foster. You might expect the first to have been born 1877/78. Laborious but if you don't know the name Matilda was living under it's one place to start.
-
Not sure about records for the court case. If any still exist I would imagine they would be with the local archives office.
Not that it is of any assistance, but I think Matilda's birth registration may be this one:-
Births Mar 1857
Foster Matilda Kings Norton 6c 437
Mother's maiden surname is Rushton.
-
Hi Josey it's the lack of surname that's been the problem. I'll go through the census records again to see if I've missed any possibles.
Girl Guide that's the correct Matilda yes.
-
1851 HO107; Piece: 2025; Folio: 145; Page: 12; 1861 not found; 1871 RG10; Piece: 2986; Folio: 31; Page: 2
So Matilda's parents were Samuel & Jane. She may have used these names for her subsequent children....when you are fumbling in the dark any lead is worthwhile ;)
-
1881 2845 /37 /12
Richard Sheldon 27 yrs
Matilda Coates Sheldon 26 yrs
Samuel Sheldon 3 yrs
Hannah Sheldon 1 yrs
Might be worth looking at
There is a Hannah Jane b 188p West Bromwich with mmn Foster
Heywood
-
1891 2269/60
Matilda Sheldon is shown as 40 yrs old and the family are in BrookStreet, West Bromwich as they are in 1881 -Brooke’s Street
-
That looks really promising Heywood. Not coming up with a marriage between Richard Sheldon and Matilda between 1875 and 1911.
-
No I couldn’t see one but her first child is Samuel and then Hannah Jane as josey mentioned. :)
-
Younger children have mmn Foster too.
-
The 1901 suggests that Matilda has remarried again
Deaths Mar 1893
Sheldon Richard 40 W. Bromwich 6b 521
1901 Piece No. 2722, Folio 80, Page 21 - Living at Ebeneezer Street
Marriages Dec 1895
Knott Charles W. Bromwich 6b 1457
Sheldon Matilda W. Bromwich 6b 1457
-
SHELDON, MAUD FOSTER
GRO Reference: 1890 S Quarter in WEST BROMWICH Volume 06B Page 799
SHELDON, ROSANNA FOSTER
GRO Reference: 1888 D Quarter in WEST BROMWICH Volume 06B Page 757
SHELDON, JOHN RICHARD FOSTER
GRO Reference: 1892 J Quarter in WEST BROMWICH Volume 06B Page 840
-
KNOTT, CHARLES FOSTER
GRO Reference: 1898 J Quarter in WEST BROMWICH Volume 06B Page 916
KNOTT, WILLIAM FOSTER
GRO Reference: 1896 S Quarter in WEST BROMWICH Volume 06B Page 861
Looks like Charles and William died before the 1901 census.
-
I saw some of those too but I can’t match Samuel to a birth with mmn. :-\
-
This looks like Samuel's birth reg:
COATS, SAMUEL Mothers maiden name FOSTER
GRO Reference: 1877 S Quarter in STOURBRIDGE Volume 06C Page 222
In the 1881 census Maria is recorded as Maria Coates Sheldon
In the 1891 census Samuel is recorded as being born in Worcestershire and the other children were recorded as being born in Staffordshire
-
Thanks for Samuel’s birth :)
Richard and Marie are a different family though.
Matilda was originally recorded as Coates and ‘mother’ in 1881. Sheldon has been added, I think.
-
Sorry Heywood, senior moment ment to type Matilda, not Maria, i was looking at the same census that you mentioned in your earlier post.
I did wonder if this might be another child of Matilda's
Birth reg:
COATS, HANNAH Mothers maiden name FOSTER
GRO Reference: 1878 D Quarter in WEST BROMWICH Volume 06B Page 835
Death reg:
COATES, HANNAH 1
GRO Reference: 1879 D Quarter in WEST BROMWICH Volume 06B Page 458
-
Looks very likely. :)
So ... I wonder who was the father of those children - Samuel and Hannah?
Perhaps as William was raised by his father, they were Richard’s but registered in her married name.
-
Hannah Jane Sheldon mmn Foster in 1880
Joseph Sheldon mmn Foster in 1881
Joseph Henry Sheldon mmn Foster in 1883
Elizabeth Sheldon mmn Foster in 1885
John Richard Sheldon mmn Foster in 1886
Rosanna Sheldon mmn Foster in 1888
Maud Sheldon mmn Foster in 1890
John Richard Sheldon mmn in 1992
All in West Bromwich
If a marriage has been found to be bigamous do they then remove it from the index?
Or maybe they just lived together as if they were married and claimed they were
Looks like this is the right Matilda
-
If Matilda was asking for maintainance in 1891 when the bigamy came to light and Richard didn't die until 1893 perhaps Samuel and Hannah were William's children and not Richard's.
-
Hi all thanks for the replies, will work through them all in a while.
All looks pretty promising. Someone mentioned Brook Street and that would certainly tie in with Brook Street being close to where I know the families lived on a number of census returns, both before and after 1891.
I'm sure I've come across the surname Sheldon before too.
Candrjm: It was William's second wife that was asking for maintenance not Matilda. Not got the report to hand but from memory he had thrown his second wife out and was living with another woman.
-
So I take it that William is with the second wife Lucy in 1901 living at 137 Dartmouth Street, West Bromwich. I assume the three Baker children are connected to Lucy?
Piece No. 2720, Folio 94, Page 37
In the 1911 William is a widower.
-
Girl Guide: Yes that's William and Lucy in Dartmouth Street in 1901.
The Baker's are perhaps another puzzle. Lucy was born Judge and married a David Taylor in 1873. I believe David died in 1888.
In one of the two newspaper reports re. bigamy that I have found there is mention of two illegitimate children that William was told to contribute to. I have considered that these could be the Baker children, especially given that Hannah Baker was living with her husband and his 'Father in law' William in 1911.
-
Good finds, heywood & GG. Matilda was almost 'hiding in plain sight' with Coates on the 1881census.
So ... I wonder who was the father of those children - Samuel and Hannah?
Perhaps as William was raised by his father, they were Richard’s but registered in her married name.
Familysearch has baptisms for Samuel 1877 & Hannah 1880 with parents Richard and Matilda, so they were probably not William's.
Someone mentioned Brook Street and that would certainly tie in with Brook Street
I'm sure I've come across the surname Sheldon before too.
It's often helpful if you mention all you know or have heard rumour of at the beginning even if you have no proof it can help tie things in.
-
If a marriage has been found to be bigamous do they then remove it from the index?
Doesn't look like it as William's to Lucy is still there
Marriages Dec 1889
Coates William W. Bromwich 6b 1291
Taylor Lucy W. Bromwich 6b 1291
-
I think that the names will remain in the index but the certificate will not be issued because no marriage has taken place.
However, on internet searches people have managed to obtain the certificate sometimes, so it presumably depends how well the information has been communicated by the registrar to mark the certificate.