RootsChat.Com
Ireland (Historical Counties) => Ireland => Topic started by: Ghostwheel on Saturday 07 April 18 20:10 BST (UK)
-
What is the reasonable limit of the term "relative" on the 1911 census?
I'm trying to prove a complicated theory, and a key part of it is that a man and woman having all their children in the same townland (pop. >200) in the 1820s were brother and sister. From baptisms, the husband of the woman definitely knew the man. The woman at marriage in 1820 is listed as being from the same townland as the man had his very first child in 1809. I infer that he was already living there when he married, but the record only gives the bride's townland.
Two other women with the same surname who married were said to be from the same townland and known to the man. No other men with the surname had children in the townland. Though it is a common name: Brien. Possibly some men may have married out of the townland, but it is not known.
Here's the key part: the 1911 census. A grandson of the early woman is listed as a widower. He has no children in his house, and though he has adult siblings in the same townland (different from the original), none of his children are staying there. I can only trace one. The others might even be in America. A three y.o. girl, daughter of the widower, is living two townlands over, in the household of the grandson of the early man and is listed as a "relative."
Some qualifiers: I know the wives were not 1st cousins, but cannot trace it further, as they came from parishes where the records only go back to 1850 and 1830. Different parishes though perhaps not too distant from each other. No repeat names.
The men on the census were also not 1st cousins, though quite likely were related twice, as they shared a surname, but the closest they could have been along the male line of the surname was 3rd cousins.
Is it reasonable for me to assume (let's say >90%) that the men on the census were 2nd cousins and their grandparents siblings?
I know that Irish people often knew their 3rd cousins, but my theory would make the little children 3rd cousins to each other. And it seems hard for me to believe that anyone with living siblings would leave their child with 3rd cousins, if the heads were only 3rd cousins, and the original man and woman not brother and sister, but 1st cousins.
Thoughts?
-
my reaction in 2018 is you cant ask his 1911 enumerator, who was facing a variety of dialects and many illerate people and taking down records as best as he could. He wouldn’t be human if he didn’t make mistakes ie Enumerators made mistakes as did clergymen in church records, as did staff in registrar offices in my opinion. if he left out the word son or daughter what would your interpretation be. I dislike the idea of basing you quest of proving your shaky incest theory all being caused by a brother and sister. in the 1820s-30s. However lets suppose you are right, incest has been studied for years since history began and judges were appointed, and sadly it is bound to exist although very very rarely wherever they are human beings. I suggest you ask a professional sociologist on the known genealogy descendacy recorded. Moving to a genealogical story, even with DNA I think the generations might be large enough to question the accuracy you want.
So I then ask are you an experienced professional genealogist. ~Your list of sources is unknown to us, the only clue is a Brien, one of 268 widowers in the 1911 census.yet your make judgments. Just on the name in the 1830s spelling variations were numerous eg Brian did you include O amd Mc etc or a missing letter Brie/ Brin have you searched in your civil parish for all the possible variants and the surrounding ring of adjoining civil parishes just in case.
To quote you “No other men with the surname had children in the townland.” Did you include all the denominations possible
To quote you “Possibly some men may have married out of the townland, but it is not known.” My experiences is almost rarely is in the same townland more likely in surrounding townland ie the civil parish needs to be checked. its also possible to make a ring of adjoining parishes all around your parish as a safety net.
To quote you “And it seems hard for me to believe that anyone with living siblings would leave their children.......” I believe the various famine caused grief and unusal taking care of others. I believe that mixed marriages in certain areas produced disastrous events for the couple. Equally straight bigotry meant you ere not welcome.
Presumably your family history includes resuls if any from Griffiths valuationand earlier the tithes applotment books. My own family history interest is more local history sources where people are named in other reports or events.eg ploughing matches etc
on cousins I once made a chart of family relations naming the relationship I think available on the internet, my grandfather marrying twice I think prodiuced ‘once removed cousins ‘
good luck in your quest but I don’t think I have anything to add. Assume nothing leave the record as you find it, mark all speculations clearly as with all comments
sorry tired out off to bed
-
Hello,
I think your theory and explanation here is too complicated because of the lack of names and the timespan.
For example,
BallyaltikilliganG has assumed incest which I didn’t see at all in your explanation but now I am wondering :-\
It might be best to explain with names and places, do you think?
Heywood
-
And Census links.
-
And Census links.
Yes please :)
-
On the Relative in Census question.
My example of a questionable relationship listed in a census.
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1901/Kildare/Oldconnell/Blacktrench/1443445/
Dennis Morrissey is listed as nephew to William Rourke.
Dennis is not William's nephew, he's not Jane's nephew either, he is Jane's sister's husband's nephew.
-
There's no way to be sure of the accuracy of the relationship to head of household on any particular census as details depend on both information from the informant (not always head of household) and recording of the enumerator.
In 1911 my grandfather's aunt listed her nephew as 'visitor' which was correct as he was just staying with her and didn't normally reside there.
-
Ghostwheel, I'm afraid you have made a complex theory even more complicated by not mentioning names and other facts.
If you re-write this giving names and dates and then offer your theory after presenting us with the facts we might have more chance of comprehending. Rather than saying "the man" "the woman" "the child" "woman at marriage" and "woman's townland", it would be preferable to maybe set the situation out in a timeline, for example:
Joe Bloggs married Hannah Smith, date, place
They had X number of children (give names and dates if relevant)
In X date, Joe Bloggs had a child with Sarah Connor.
In the X census Joe and Hannah were living with X and X at X address or townland.
I am trying to find out who the parents of X and X are .... Etc etc.
This is not your scenario, just an example of a way you could set it out to make it clearer. :)
Added: Just a thought .. If you believe a certain man and woman were brother and sister, do you have a marriage entry or certificate? Would it name the fathers of bride and groom? Apologies if you have already mentioned this in the question.
-
I agree with the comments from everyone who has already replied. I cannot fathom why you are concerned as to what the actual relationship (to the head of the household) was for the 'relative' in the census. I am aware of many families who include 'god-children', 'in-laws' and 'steps' for example as 'relatives'. :) :) :)
JM
-
I know all that was very confusing. I've probably used some possessive pronouns without clarity, as in "their children."
To clarify: I was not talking about an ancient Egyptian or Incan royal marriage - no brother and sister wedding each other. The closest marriage I ever saw between Catholics in Ireland was 2nd cousins. Most consanguineous dispensations that I've seen were not even for 2nd cousins, but either for 3rd cousins or 2nd-once-removed. The Irish were not an inbred lot, at least not in the 1800s.
Sinann, that is an interesting point about the "nephew." Ruskie, good point about names.
I am descended from John Brien, (m1808, my GGG grandfather) and know that I'm related to someone descended from Julia Brien (m1820, other's GGG grandmother). It seems certain that they were related somehow. I am not descended from either 1911 household (headed by their respective grandsons). One head (c1911) was the brother of my G grandmother (b1870), so the wives of the heads on the census don't obviously enter into it.
I'm sorry, I know this is all very confusing, I'd give more names, but I'd hasten to add there is no direct connection. I'm interested in the idea that John and Julia were brother and sister, as Julia (m1820) may have a surviving baptism record from 1799. If they were siblings, it follows that Julia's parents would be John's parents, ie. I've found my GGGG grandparents. But John was older than the surviving record (only goes back to very late 1798), and he certainly has no surviving birth record, ie. John and Julia cannot be directly connected through their earlier ancestors.
The only evidence is circumstantial evidence, and it is kind of a weird parish. There are different gaps, some small and some large. The heads on the 1911 census were born in a large gap, they and their siblings have no surviving baptism records. One even has no birth record, but I'm still able to trace it back to John (m1808) and Julia (m1820), their respective grandparents, with virtual certainty.
I have found various bits of circumstantial evidence - it is a very complicated theory. But I'm sure nobody is interested in bits of very circumstantial evidence or very lateral names. Suffice it to say, John (m1808) is inferred to be tied to the 1799 townland and, his unknown relation, Julia is inferred to be Julia (b1799).
I hasten to repeat there are no direct connections. I've searched very thoroughly and am quite certain. What I'm interested in is purely an abstraction, based on "relative" on the 1911 census and the reasonable theory that John (m1808) and Julia (m1820) were related:
If we accept that John (m1808) and Julia (m1820) were blood relations and we accept that their respective grandsons (heads, c1911) were related by blood through them, and had no equal or closer blood relationship along a different line, then to what degree where the heads (c1911) related, based on the child of one being called a "relative" in the others household?
I am sure of all the incidentals. I know we cannot be sure of the conclusions, but I'm interested in impressions - that is what I am soliciting. Were John (m1808) and Julia (m1820) more likely to be siblings (ie. I've found my GGG grandfather's parents) than first cousins?
In other words, would someone leave their 3 y.o. child with 3rd cousins? Or put another way, would someone, with several young children, take in their 3rd cousin's 3 y.o.? When the widower had obvious siblings closer (though crowded living)? As Julia (m1820) had many children, presumably the widower (c1911) had many first cousins, but more distant (6-8 miles). Would the heads being 2nd cousins (ie. John and Julia were siblings) be a lot more probable than the heads being 3rd cousins (ie. John and Julia were first cousins)?
Or if that is all too complicated, I'll just put it another way: what is the most distant blood relationship you have ever been able to work out for a "relative" on the census? Preferably a child. And assuming an actual blood relationship, not something by marriage or godparent. I know Irish records are messed up, so I'll take any European country or offshoot like the US or Canada, as well as Ireland.
-
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.
-
All censuses are "snapshots" of where people were on one specific night. The 3 year old may not have been living permanently where you found her. In 1911, a widower was probably unable to look after a 3 yr old girl and work at the same time, so she was almost certainly going to be looked after elsewhere. The widower may have paid for her to be looked after by his (maybe) distant relatives. In England, a common expression for a looked after young child was nurse child. I think in a small Irish community, everyone would have known everyone else, but probably wouldn't have described each other as third cousin twice removed (for example) - they would just have been "relatives" to each other. I think it is very unlikely that there were any incestuous relationships involved.
-
I don't think looking at the child who was a "relative" is a way to find out if John and Julia were related. "Relative" is too general a term. Alpine cottage has hit the nail on the head - a census is ONE night in ten years so we can't glean much at all from relationships, where people were living and with whom. For all we know the enumerator may have just written "relative" because it was easier than writing "orphaned grandchild of farmer on adjacent farm being taken care of by family until farmer finishes harvesting" ..... :-\
I know it can be more difficult with Irish records but would you not just trace John and Julia back via the "usual" means to see if you can find that connection further back. Once again I must apologise if you said you have already done this, but I am still finding your scenario difficult to follow.
-
IF I'm following this correctly, John and Julia have been followed back as far as the records go and than forward without finding a definite connection between the two resulting lines so everything hinges on the 3 year old of one line spending one or possibly more nights with someone from the other line.
The closer the child's relationship to the people she is with in the census the closer is the relationship between John and Julia.
There is no way to say how close her relationship is unless they tell you which they don't.
Assuming you have all the descendants of both Julia and John perhaps when the early civil records come online you might find an informant on a death cert that could connect the two lines.
-
I am still finding your scenario difficult to follow.
Thank goodness it's not just me ::)
In all honesty, this has to be the most complex & confusing post I've ever read & there's been quite a few over the yrs.
As Ruskie mentioned, a Timeline would have been a good idea with names/ages/dates etc.
However, as you're talking of Irish Catholics is it possible the 'Relative' was an illegitimate child, possibly a grandchild as illegitimacy would have been very embarrassing i.e. using a term which wouldn't be frowned upon as the Enumerator (I don't think) would give the '3rd degree' as to what the actual 'relative' relationship was?
I agree with others & doubt your couple were siblings.
Annie
-
sinann explained the scenario in a way that made sense to me .
i agree with Rosinish about using the term relative to cover up an illegitimate childs parentage
my grandmother was a boarder in 1901 and became adoptive child in 1911 the couple were in their 70's by then.
i started a tree for the foster family ...and maybe the adoptive mother was actually her grandfathers cousin ......I'm having trouble confirming . but it would be nice to think there was a blood link between the families.
-
Alpine, good point about the census being a snapshot. I'd really like to see the 1921 census. I have reason to believe it wasn't a one night thing, as the widower's other young children can't be traced in Ireland on the census and were probably in the US. i think the girl may have also been sent abroad later - she doesn't seem to have a death record or a marriage record. The widower died in 1834. His death was reported by a nephew, not a child. Maybe, he had none around.
Ruskie, it is impossible to trace back before 1799. The paper record ceases to exist, in very late 1798. Assuming John (m1808) was at least 18 when married, he was born 1790 or earlier, at least 8 years before the paper record begins.
Sinann, you've summarized it very well: it is impossible to connect it pre-1800, so I trying to connect it working from the 1911 census. I'm afraid there isn't much hope on the death records. I've found both heads already. I believe one didn't have any siblings in Ireland, at the time, so that makes the chance for any cross-reporting low.
Rosinish, the child on the census is not illegitimate. She has a birth record and a mother who died before the 1911 census. She is living two townlands over (all in the mountains) from her father, who is a widower.
-
Ghostwheel...
Why don't you do as Ruskie suggested...a Timeline with the info. you have as others are more likely to be able to help if you provide them with names/dates/places from info. they have access to which isn't online?
Your post is like a huge secret & I doubt anyone can help you further without you giving info. other than what Ruskie mentioned...
"the man" "the woman" "the child" "woman at marriage" and "woman's townland"
How do you expect anyone to research with the above info. ???
Researchers need facts to work from & you have given nothing in terms of 'FACTS' for anyone to work on.
Good luck in your quest as I don't think anyone on here can help you with anything as you have provided them with nothing to work with.
Zero input = Zero outcome ;D
Annie
-
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 ...
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
I am now even more confused if that is possible. :P No matter.
I think we might be back to square one and your original question about what relationship a "relative" might be to head of household in 1911. The answer is probably "who knows". ;D
I thought if you were willing to give names, dates, places of the individuals involved then someone may be able to find some facts/concrete evidence for you about the relationships rather than assumptions and guesswork, which is all we can do without more facts.
-
Heywood, that is an interesting perspective. I had never thought that: there is a level of kin beyond knowledge. For instance, sometimes rarer first names are associated with surnames. if you were living in the same parish with another fellow who had the same name as you, you'd probably consider him kin.
Sinann, that is quite a lifelike picture you paint. If you have secretly built some time machine in your garage, I hope you don't throw anything out of whack in one my parishes. Or should I even say counties and provinces? Just how far are you going back?! Maybe, next time hop to Ming-era China to be on the safe side?
Aghadowey, that is really a funny line about not saying anything. i'm surprised I never heard it in a movie. Thinking about it, I'm not too sure how far back people could remember. My own aunt had some really mistaken impressions about her aunts, thinking some were half-sisters, because her grandfather was a widower who had remarried. I can't decide, if she was told a story or not, as the first birth was a bit early. But I've always thought of that as Americans quickly forgetting most kin.
-
Ruskie,
In my personal philosophy, impressions and guesswork are very important. You need them to come up with hunches, that can possibly be tested. That was why I was soliciting impressions, to hone my hunches.
I'm sure, what I've said has struck you as using a dousing rod. But in my experience, it really helps. Studying the map, even the mountains and looking at very lateral names - people I wasn't directly interested in, that couldn't be connected on a tree - has helped me enormously, not once, but twice. In Ireland, you need out of the box approaches.
In one instance, my starting point was actually this same "relative." Her mother was born quite close to where one of my G grandfathers was born. My G grandparents had married in the US. They were from different parishes and I hadn't even conceived of the idea that they had known each other in Ireland. This changed all that. It changed my idea of scale and direction. It helped me find 2 of my GG grandmothers who had extremely common names, and who had almost zero clues associated with them. Me finding them so close together - associated with the same townland and knowing that they had the same surname was its own check, Because I realized that they were related, though the paper record didn't go far back enough to say how.
No one searching for just one name, or just in one line, would have ever found that. It was on nobody's tree, and I'm sure I was the first person to figure it out, and likely the only one who would have ever figured it out. Because no one else would have had the patience or the right clue.
And, it all began with this same unknown "relative", and ended with two other people who were unknown relatives to each other. My closing thought: "relative" or "cousin" should never be disregarded in Ireland. It may be a snipe hunt, but it might surprise you and turn out to be profitable, even if you can't trace it.
-
This is a very interesting general topic ..thou I'm sure some of us would like a go at seeing if we could match up the actual people.
I too use hunches then check up
my grandmother was given an unusual middle name ....I didnt know that was used as a way of identifying birth fathers to get child maintenance but there were only 2 men with that surname in Birkenhead in 1901
one was married age 46 with 6 children the other was single aged 30
my hunch was that it could also be the married man's eldest son who may have left birkenhead before the baby was born
it turned out that the single man was the eldest son of the other ! we identified him
because he did pay the child maintenance we found a great grandfather
a few years after identifying his siblings we then had a great great grandfather too
-
It is not uncommon for couple to know each other in one country, travel to another separately, then marry, sometimes years later. I have a few examples of this.
It's fine if you want to work on hunches - sometimes you might get lucky and find that an educated guess is correct ... other times, maybe not.
There are regularly threads on rootschat trying to prove or disprove family stories about relationships - sometimes they are completely wrong, and sometimes there is a grain of truth in them. Finding documentation is really the only way to prove or disprove.
It is your family so it is up to you how you approach your research and what conclusions you come to based on what you find or assume.
Brigidmac, In your example I would say you used lateral thinking rather than going by a hunch. :)
-
To Ghostwheel,
Is it possible that the child was with her mother's relations on census night.
The other possibility is that child was looked after near where her father worked.
Having the same surname is not proof that both families are related.
Jfch
-
People put down all sorts on census returns. Or it may be just the enumerator.
I once saw a return where a son has his own mother down as "boarder" under relationship.