RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: familydar on Monday 15 October 18 11:24 BST (UK)
-
Amazingly the head of household was able to sign his name but he evidently had a problem with counting. The first-born daughter arrived at least 6 months after the wedding!
Jane :-)
-
Yes. Even 10 years after the reign of of the prudish Victoria. Prudish values still existed, in some rural parts even until after the second world war.
Being base borne, living under the brush, were sayings bandied about in even my childhood.
Vilifying someone from 1911 for their beliefs by today's standards is being a bit harsh. Remember these people were brought up with Victorian beliefs, where the glimpse of an ankle was deemed as extreme rudeness.
-
My favourite euphemism for bastardy is "born the wrong side of the blanket."
Martin
-
Those amendments would have been made by an office clerk. I don't see it as judgmental, just someone being especially pernickety over the statistics being correct.
-
My favourite euphemism for bastardy is "born the wrong side of the blanket."
Martin
"Base Born"....I thought it meant born at a military camp ;D ;D It me some years to realise what this meant.
Carol
-
The column heading says"completed years the marriage has lasted", so they could have been married 18 years and 11 months, in which case the child would be legitimate?
-
Sorry, my last post was nonsense, must learn to engage brain before posting!
-
The column heading says"completed years the marriage has lasted", so they could have been married 18 years and 11 months, in which case the child would be legitimate?
Then the child would not have been aged 19.
As Familydar said, the householder has written information that is inconsistent. Some census clerk has noticed the anomaly and made an assumption as to how to rectify it.
If the marriage had lasted for 18y and 11m, and the child was aged 18 and 9, yes she would have been legitimate. But it's not usual to round up someone's age.
ADDED, sorry Carom just saw you retracted, but it is another explanation the clerk could have considered.
-
Amazingly the head of household was able to sign his name but he evidently had a problem with counting. The first-born daughter arrived at least 6 months after the wedding!
Jane :-)
Looks like it.
Not the Enumerator's fault!
-
If the marriage had lasted for 18y and 11m, and the child was aged 18 and 9, yes she would have been legitimate. But it's not usual to round up someone's age
If the parents married after her birth she would have been legitimised.