RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Topic started by: M_ONeill on Thursday 11 October 18 14:47 BST (UK)
-
So I've heard of ancestors abandoning children, but did children ever abandon their parents?
In the 1830s/1840s my 3x great grandfather and his five brothers are all living with their families in what seems to be a fairly tight knit social group in western Wolverhampton, Staffordshire and the villages just to the west, all within a few miles from each other.
Their father however (my 4x great grandfather) is living apparently on his own in the town of Rock, Worcestershire some 20 miles to the south, where all the boys were born. No relatives nearby that I can see and he's aged somewhere between 60-65.
Now there is a geographical link (the Staffordshire-Worcestershire canal) that makes the distance maybe not as insurmountable as it might be, but then all of the sons have changed their names (from Monk to Monkton) whereas the father took his original one to the grave, which is what made me wonder if an estrangement took place.
I'm trying to get an idea as to what might be going in here. Have any of you seen similar goings-on in your own trees?
-
Some names, places & dates may help us to answer your query.
-
I can see where you are coming from but don't think anything unusual in the father living by himself and the sons with their own families. I take it the father was widowed and mother wasn't around.
When is the first example of the name Monkton? When the boys were little did they have the Monk surname ie they changed it as soon as they were out of the house and on their own?
-
Apologies, I've posted bits of the same story in various threads and was worried about repeating myself. The general outline of what I know:
William Monk, born c 1780 in Rock, Worcestershire (possible parish birth record of 1775 in St Peter and Paul's church Rock, have yet to confirm).
Married an Elizabeth Handley in the same church 1798.
William and Elizabeth had a number of children, all baptised in St Peter and Paul's.
William Monk born c1799 (no parish record found)
Mary Monk born 12th May 1800
Edward Monk - 9 October 1802
John Monk - 1 January 1805 (my 3x great grandfather)
Thomas Monk - 4 November 1806
James Monk - 16 April 1809
Joseph Monk - 08 April 1816
Francis Monk - 02 Jul 1815 (Died that year)
George Monk - 07 Jul 1821 (Died the next year)
I believe Elizabeth Handley died around 1821 and William Monk snr. died in 1844.
Of their surviving children, I've found all except Mary in later Census returns. All of them, without exception, are using the name Monkton. All subsequent marriages use Monkton. John married a Jane Taylor of Pattingham, Staffordshire in 1836, St Peter's Wolverhampton and settled in Pattingham.
William, Thomas James and Edward all lived in the Upper Penn village just outside of Wolverhampton, William Thomas and James actually living together at one point. They stayed, whereas Edward went back to Rock after his father's death (He's living there in 1851 with his wife and family).
Joseph married an Ann Masefield in Pattingham, also in 1836 and then seems to have moved back and forth between Pattingham and Wolverhampton (one son George, died in infancy, another son Thomas, survived). Joseph appears to have died in 1840. Ann seems to have links to Pattingham, her parents are living there in 1841, looking after her child while she is in Shiffnal, Shropshire. She was remarried later that same year and living with her husband and son as Ann Hamlett in Sedgley, near Dudley in 1851.
One historical note I discovered. The lady of Patshull Hall, just outside Pattingham was a Mary Ann Pigot, born Monckton - to a much more famous, landed family in Staffordshire. She died in 1833 and the Pigot Baronets sold Patshull Hall in 1848. In 1841 John is living with his wife and family in Nore Hill farm on what I believe is an outlying part of the Patshull Hall estate, whereas he was living in Pattingham village itself from 1851 onwards. I have no idea if his name and his living on the estate is more than a coincidence. I've found no evidence of any link so far, it may be that the Monks simply adopted the name because it was a high-class name in the county.
So with such a large family group, who seem to stick together everywhere, maybe you can see my confusion as to why William Monk seems so isolated in his old age...
-
So with such a large family group, who seem to stick together everywhere, maybe you can see my confusion as to why William Monk seems so isolated in his old age...
If you are referrring to a census entry don't forget that it was just a 'snapshot' of one night and not necessarily where someone always lived
-
So with such a large family group, who seem to stick together everywhere, maybe you can see my confusion as to why William Monk seems so isolated in his old age...
If you are referrring to a census entry don't forget that it was just a 'snapshot' of one night and not necessarily where someone always lived
That's a good point. I think that he is listed as living in a single household on his own, in a place called Halls within the Rock district. Of course he could have been there temporarily.
-
On the face of it I cannot see anything unusual in this, children marry and move to where the work is, dad stays at home, even tho he is widowed, that is how the world is.
My kids did that, I certainly did not think when I was sixty five I had been abandoned, or that I was elderly.
I won’t say I was glad to see them go, but.. ;D ;D ;D
Mike
-
Was the father employed on 1841 census? If he had work and a home there would be no reason to move.
You said you couldn't find daughter, Mary. Do you know if she survived and if so, whom she married? She may have been nearby.
What do you know about Rock, in particular employment opportunities at the time?
It's possible that one son moved first, for work or love, and others followed.
Was John a tenant farmer in 1841 or a farm labourer? The chance to rent a farm would have been a good reason to move.
Consider rules on settlement. The father would have been entitled to Poor Relief in his own parish if he became unable to work through age or infirmity; he may not have been entitled to Poor Relief in a different place if he moved.
I came across a Quarter Sessions petition requiring a son to support his widowed mother.
-
William Monk is listed as an agrigultural labourer on the 1841 census. I have no idea if Mary survived or married, her baptismal record was found as part of a look-up by a local rootschatter. I have not yet managed to find any other associated record for her so she may have died young or equally be living nearby under a married name.
I don't know a whole lot about Rock - I know there were a number of mines there. The 41 census seems to show it was a fairly busy place with a wide varieties of trades; miners, woodcutters, publicans, shopkeepers, blacksmiths, basket makers, tailors, farriers. The first man on the return is simply listed as a 'Cosmopolitan', which I've never seen before. One of William Monk's neighbours in the census is even listed as an 'Engineer'.
So I think that the Staffordshire-Worcestershire canal is definitely a key part of this family's story. It opened in 1771-1772 and links Stourport (only ~5 miles from Rock) with Wolverhampton. My assumption is that the brothers moved first to Wolverhampton (either together or one by one) and then sometime before 1836 the link with Pattingham was established.
So I'm not sure (property history not being my strong point) but I think Nore Hill farm was a tenant farm. I've found a the following reference (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/7bb0d778-46cf-47ad-8354-bdbffcbe6d8d) to a record held in the Staffordshire archives that I think describes the farm being leased to a previous owner by Sir Robert Pigot, the second Baronet. Interestingly, it's John who has no trade or profession listed in the 1841 census, the field is simply blank. There seems to have been another property on the farm which was held in 1841 by the Ash family (two elderly agricultural labourers and Ann Ash, who I presume is their daughter, listed as 'schoolmistress').
EDIT: Just looked it up, the Astley mentioned in the previous deal is Sir John Astley, 2nd Baronet - he sold Patshull Hall to George Pigot (Robert Pigot's father and the 1st Pigot Baronet) in 1771. So it looks like Astley leased the dwelling to someone called Maddox, who then surrendered the Lease to Sir Robert Pigott, who was now the owner.
-
Looking a bit more closely at the birth dates of the Monk children, I notice a slightly suspicious gap from 1810 - 14. I'm beginning to wonder if there aren't some missing children in there. I wonder if William and Elizabeth ever lived outside of Rock. ???
Also, one of Edward Monkton's daughters was listed in a later census as having been born in Rock c1844, so he may actually have come back to Rock sometime just before his father died, although it's hard to tell thanks to the fuzzy dates.
-
Looking a bit more closely at the birth dates of the Monk children, I notice a slightly suspicious gap from 1810 - 14. I'm beginning to wonder if there aren't some missing children in there. I wonder if William and Elizabeth ever lived outside of Rock. ???
You may be right. There may have been other reasons. Elizabeth may have had a miscarriage. Her husband might have been away from home; this was last few years of Napoleonic Wars, men volunteered or were conscripted into militia, army or navy.
You're assuming that all the children were baptised as infants, not always the case. Some baptism registers included birthdates. There was a short gap between baptism of Francis, July 1815 and Joseph, April 1816. It's unlikely that Joseph was premature as he survived to adulthood. If Joseph was full-term and if Francis was baptised as an infant, Francis might have been born 1814 or early 1815. He could have been born before then. Unfortunately Francis died in 1815 so no census record to say when and where he was born. Did entry in burial register give any information?
Do you know how old their mother was?
-
That's interesting, Maiden Stone, I didn't know a lot of that information about baptisms!
I sadly don't know exactly how old Elizabeth was, as I haven't found a birth record yet. Given the time of her marriage I use a rough estimate of about 1776, but that's just a ballpark guess.
Francis' baptismal listing has his baptism on 2nd July 1815 with his death on 9th September 1815.
-
There's a burial record for Elizabeth Monk, aged 45, 8th July 1821 St Peter & St Paul, Rock
-
Ah, thank you, Cristeen!
I looked up George’s baptismal date - it looks likely that Elizabeth died in childbirth. He was baptised on the 7th July 1821. He died 3rd November 1822.
-
There's a burial record for Elizabeth Monk, aged 45, 8th July 1821 St Peter & St Paul, Rock
If that was her and if age approximately correct, she would have been mid-thirties in 1810. Fertility level might have decreased a bit.
-
So thanks to your post earlier, MS, I looked into the possibility of military service. I found records relating to one William Monk, Private of the 2nd Batallion, 66th regiment of foot. They sailed for service in the Peninsular war in April 1809 and said soldier was awarded military medal clasps up to the battle of Orthez in February 1814. I’m chasing up the particulars in a thread in the Armed Forces forum, but a cursory glance shows it’s a possibility, at least.
The one potential fly in the ointment is that the medal was awarded retroactively in 1848 and had to be applied for in person by surviving soldiers. My pencilled-in death record for William is ~1844.
-
So I think I’ve just found another twist in this case - I’ve found what I believe to be Joseph’s burial record in Rock in 1839, but he’s buried as Joseph Monk.
So I’m not 100% sure it’s the same one, but I’m pretty sure. I’ve found no records of any other Joseph Monks in Rock.
The dates almost match perfectly (birth is given as 1813 rather than 1816, but that could be a mistranscription, I suppose. That, or William and Elizabeth waited 3 years to have him baptised). burial date is given as 17th May 1839, two months after the baptism of Joseph Monkton’s second son, Thomas in Pattingham.
Now Rock is a long way to be buried away from Pattingham, especially when you’ve just had a son baptised there. Maybe Ann and Joseph had split up and Joseph had gone back to live with his father?
So this story just gets stranger and stranger. You have the Monk family, the sons all move away and by 1833 at least one of them is calling themselves ‘Monkton’. All of the other brothers have all followed suit by between ‘33 and ‘41.
One of the brothers, Joseph, gets married under his new name in Pattingham, but somehow ends up dying back in his hometown, while his father still lives. He is buried under his original name of Monk. Another Brother, Edward, returns to Rock either just before or just after his father dies, but he continues using Monkton. The name Monk seems to be buried with William.
Anybody have any ideas as to what’s happening here? I’m pretty stumped! Given that Joseph dies in Rock in ‘39, I think we can discount the idea of the kids deserting their father. Equally though, evidence suggests that William maybe either didn’t know or didn’t approve of the name change.
Thoughts?
-
So I think I’ve just found another twist in this case - I’ve found what I believe to be Joseph’s burial record in Rock in 1839, but he’s buried as Joseph Monk.
So I’m not 100% sure it’s the same one, but I’m pretty sure. I’ve found no records of any other Joseph Monks in Rock.
The dates almost match perfectly (birth is given as 1813 rather than 1816, but that could be a mistranscription, I suppose. That, or William and Elizabeth waited 3 years to have him baptised).
Re surname. Could everyone concerned read and write? Some people's surnames were altered in records without their knowledge because they were illiterate. I assume Joseph would have been known in his birthplace as Joseph Monk.
Recorded age at death was often inaccurate. Whoever arranged funeral may have estimated Joseph's age. Joseph may not have known his exact age.
-
Re surname. Could everyone concerned read and write? Some people's surnames were altered in records without their knowledge because they were illiterate. I assume Joseph would have been known in his birthplace as Joseph Monk.
That's actually something I've been thinking about recently as it seems as if the family was somewhat literate - but not consistently so.
- William Monkton can sign his name by his 1833 marriage (even if his handwriting isn't so perfect).
- Edward Monkton apparently can't write his name - either witnessing William's marriage above or at his own in 1835
- John Monkton can't write his name in his 1836 marriage.
- Joseph Monkton can sign his name by his 1836 marriage in Pattingham (notably small and crabbed letters).
- James or Thomas never seem to have married or signed documents, so I don't know about them.
So strangely, it seems as if the eldest and youngest brothers could write by the mid 1830s, but their brothers couldn't. Either way, they were deliberately using the name Monkton, rather than it being clerical error.
I had the same thought about Joseph being known as Monk back in Rock. Though strangely, when Edward goes back from ~1844 to sometime before 1861 he uses Monkton, despite presumably being known by his birth name. Still, given he brought a wife and family he had had under Monkton with him, he probably couldn't go back even if he wanted to. Or maybe his father was dead/dying and so it didn't matter.
-
Re surname. Could everyone concerned read and write? Some people's surnames were altered in records without their knowledge because they were illiterate. I assume Joseph would have been known in his birthplace as Joseph Monk.
That's actually something I've been thinking about recently as it seems as if the family was somewhat literate - but not consistently so. ….
So strangely, it seems as if the eldest and youngest brothers could write by the mid 1830s, but their brothers couldn't. Either way, they were deliberately using the name Monkton, rather than it being clerical error.
I had the same thought about Joseph being known as Monk back in Rock. Though strangely, when Edward goes back from ~1844 to sometime before 1861 he uses Monkton, despite presumably being known by his birth name. Still, given he brought a wife and family he had had under Monkton with him, he probably couldn't go back even if he wanted to. Or maybe his father was dead/dying and so it didn't matter.
They may have adapted their name to Monkton in the new place, if as you said in an earlier post, it was the name of a prominent local family. It might have done no harm for a family of newcomers to seem to be connected to an established family. ("Tess of the d'Urbevilles" comes to mind.)
Joseph would have had no say in how his name was written after his death.
Did any of them leave wills?
-
They may have adapted their name to Monkton in the new place, if as you said in an earlier post, it was the name of a prominent local family. It might have done no harm for a family of newcomers to seem to be connected to an established family. ("Tess of the d'Urbevilles" comes to mind.)
Would that kind of social climbing have been that important to a family who were still all basically doing agricultural labouring? I'm not that up to speed on this area of 19th century social history, so maybe it was.
Joseph would have had no say in how his name was written after his death.
Did any of them leave wills?
I did a quick check for wills and there were none that I could find. The only Monckton will in Wolverhampton was that of General Henry Monckton - an offshoot of the Moncktons of Brewood. I tried to read it, but my palaeography is not that good. :D
-
Well, in one sense, I've at least answered the question at the beginning of this thread - William Monk was not abandoned by his children - at least not at the end.
In another sense, the mystery deepens...
I've obtained a PDF of William Monk's death certificate for the 17th Dec 1844. William was a labourer, aged 69 years and died of 'Dropsy'. The witness to his death, Edward Monk.
So I now know that when Edward returned to Rock, he did so under his original name. Which makes sense, I suppose. There would likely be people there who knew him as a child, not to mention his father. I was even able to find the Baptismal record for the child he and his wife had in Rock not two months before William's death; Edward James Monk.
And yet, by the time the 1851 census rolls around seven years later, they are all listed as Monkton, even Edward James. So they either gave up on calling themselves Monk after William's death or, and I think this slightly more likely, they lived openly in the village as 'Monk', while still considering themselves 'Moncktons'. By the time they'd moved up to Shropshire, they've gone back to openly being Moncktons.
I'm not sure what to make of it all, really. It's clear that no matter what they did, they were known under the name Monk in rock, but were really, really adamant to use their new name everywhere they could, even in the secrecy of the census return.
-
So today I got the PDF of Joseph's death certificate. He died of 'dropsy' on the 13th of May 1839 aged 26 years old. Witness was Ann 'Monk', present at the death. So my theory that Joseph may have abandoned Ann was wide of the mark.
They're over 20 miles away from the village where they baptised their son only two months prior, though. Makes me wonder why they're down there, rather than in Wolverhampton. I read somewhere that there were pretty bad outbreaks of disease round about this time in Wolverhampton.