RootsChat.Com

Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 13:44 BST (UK)

Title: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 13:44 BST (UK)
[I'll mention DNA but I feel this question belongs here.]

I'm struggling to interpret some DNA results which aren't leading where they 'should'.
So: some sideways thinking is required.

Q: In your own searches (and families), have you ever come across children who have been 'passed around the family' (placed with other branches, even), in order to provide them with a home? Particularly in the late 19th century...

Linked with this, have you ever seen a household which includes very young children, born when a mother was in her very late 40s, 50s? And the said children could be younger than the mother's grandchild (where the grandchild = e.g. a child of the mother's married daughter)?

Thanks for your contributions


Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: Pheno on Saturday 23 October 21 14:57 BST (UK)
Yes to both DB.

In the latter case they might well be (illegitimate) children of a daughter who is not in the household at census time but out working and the children are looked after by the grandparents.

Pheno
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: Erato on Saturday 23 October 21 15:14 BST (UK)
Yup, I've seen both situations.
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: QueenoftheWest on Saturday 23 October 21 15:44 BST (UK)
Not exactly the same, but my grandfather's grandfather Laurie was informally 'adopted' by a lady in her late 40s, called Elizabeth, and her husband. This took place in the mid-1800s, so a bit earlier than yours.

I purchased all available civil registration certificates and tried to piece together what happened. As it turns out, Laurie's mother left him, and his infant sister, with Elizabeth and then proceeded to drop off the face of the earth.

Laurie's mother was not married to his and his sister's father, although she pretended that she was.

Elizabeth and her husband were childless, which is probably why she agreed to take the children.

DNA later revealed that Elizabeth was a biological relative of Laurie; I have not yet figured out how she and Laurie's mother were related but, based on the age gap between them, I'm speculating maybe aunt/niece.

The answer to your question is yes, children were certainly placed with older members of the family in the 19th century.

Queenie  :)
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: bearkat on Saturday 23 October 21 15:57 BST (UK)
My Gt Grandmother always said there was room for one more - the illegitimate son of her daughter, the grandchildren from a first marriage not wanted by a second husband etc.

There were either taken in by family or went to the workhouse or other institution.
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 16:12 BST (UK)
My Gt Grandmother always said there was room for one more - the illegitimate son of her daughter, the grandchildren from a first marriage not wanted by a second husband etc.

There were either taken in by family or went to the workhouse or other institution.

bearkat
Thank you
...and presumably living with a family member (any family member) was a much preferable alternative to the workhouse...

"Room for one more". I really like that.
D

Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 16:16 BST (UK)
Not exactly the same, but my grandfather's grandfather Laurie was informally 'adopted' by a lady in her late 40s, called Elizabeth, and her husband. This took place in the mid-1800s, so a bit earlier than yours.

I purchased all available civil registration certificates and tried to piece together what happened. As it turns out, Laurie's mother left him, and his infant sister, with Elizabeth and then proceeded to drop off the face of the earth.

Laurie's mother was not married to his and his sister's father, although she pretended that she was.

Elizabeth and her husband were childless, which is probably why she agreed to take the children.

DNA later revealed that Elizabeth was a biological relative of Laurie; I have not yet figured out how she and Laurie's mother were related but, based on the age gap between them, I'm speculating maybe aunt/niece.

The answer to your question is yes, children were certainly placed with older members of the family in the 19th century.

Queenie  :)

Queenie, I'm grateful.
Other families' stories are always enlightening.

Your Elizabeth was childless (had space), and was also generous too. Does sound like an aunt...

My question, actually, would be:
"Would a last child of an older couple ever be placed with a younger member of the family, who had more room?"
To be more specific, could/would a very late arrival for Sam + Eliza be placed next door, with their married daughter Mary Ann, to be brought up by the married daughter and her husband and other children, under her married name?

It seems as if this could easily happen - but it's not immediately obvious to us, 100 years later.

D
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 16:18 BST (UK)
Yup, I've seen both situations.

Thank you.
My eyes are being opened!
D
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 16:21 BST (UK)
Yes to both DB.

In the latter case they might well be (illegitimate) children of a daughter who is not in the household at census time but out working and the children are looked after by the grandparents.

Pheno

Pheno
Thank you for confirming that the 'sharing out' of children was a possible (normal?) practice.

As I've just explained to another contributor, I'm looking at a backwards situation - where a very late baby for an older couple seems to have been placed with their married daughter, next door, to be brought up among the daughter's young ones. And given the daughter's married name - to blend in?

Would this be likely, too?
D
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: Jebber on Saturday 23 October 21 16:41 BST (UK)
Anything is possible. There is a family on a distant branch of my tree, they had several children over a long span of years, they are recorded in the census as all children of the  couple. I took this as the fact (they were too distant to warrant the expense of certificates etc). It is was only when watching an episode of Heir Hunters who happened to be researching the same family, that revealed it was not the case.
 
The last but one child was the illegitimate child of the eldest daughter. The couple  deliberately went on to have another child themselves in an effort to conceal the true  situation. A salutary lesson to take some family relationships in the census with a large pinch of salt.
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: Erato on Saturday 23 October 21 16:57 BST (UK)
To elaborate slightly, I have two cases in which young nieces were informally adopted by married but childless aunts.  In one case I think the adoption was an effort to help out a sister who had a lot of children and a neglectful, possibly even criminal, husband who eventually abandoned his family.  In the other case, the adopted niece also came from a large family but I think she went to live with her aunt to provide companionship not because of any problem in her own birth family.
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 17:47 BST (UK)
Anything is possible. There is a family on a distant branch of my tree, they had several children over a long span of years, they are recorded in the census as all children of the  couple. I took this as the fact (they were too distant to warrant the expense of certificates etc). It is was only when watching an episode of Heir Hunters who happened to be researching the same family, that revealed it was not the case.
 
The last but one child was the illegitimate child of the eldest daughter. The couple  deliberately went on to have another child themselves in an effort to conceal the true  situation. A salutary lesson to take some family relationships in the census with a large pinch of salt.

A salutary lesson indeed. Thank you.

I'm wondering if these unexpected DNA results are able to deliver the true story, and if so, how?
A good strong part of them definitely pertain to this family unit, but DNA from the husband's side, let's call it JONES, appears to be missing. So the JONES child I'm investigating only has DNA from the mother's side of the family, from SMITH. But was called JONES, and so were all their offspring.

Is there a scenario where SMITH DNA would be all that is needed?
I mean, fathers do sometimes have relations with their daughters; we might find it scandalous but it does occur... so, in this case, the DNA could be doubling up, if you know what I mean? There are more SMITH DNA matches than expected.

Or is it more likely that Mrs SMITH had an affair with TAYLOR, and I should search for Mr TAYLOR?
Or?..

Baby JONES is clearly part of this JONES-SMITH family, in an extended sense. But is not a JONES.

Where to go from here?
D








Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 17:47 BST (UK)
Anything is possible. There is a family on a distant branch of my tree, they had several children over a long span of years, they are recorded in the census as all children of the  couple. I took this as the fact (they were too distant to warrant the expense of certificates etc). It is was only when watching an episode of Heir Hunters who happened to be researching the same family, that revealed it was not the case.
 
The last but one child was the illegitimate child of the eldest daughter. The couple  deliberately went on to have another child themselves in an effort to conceal the true  situation. A salutary lesson to take some family relationships in the census with a large pinch of salt.

A salutary lesson indeed. Thank you.

I'm wondering if these unexpected DNA results are able to deliver the true story, and if so, how?
A good strong part of them definitely pertains to this family unit, but DNA from the husband's side, let's call it JONES, appears to be missing. So the JONES child I'm investigating only has DNA from the mother's side of the family, from SMITH. But was called JONES, and so were all their offspring.

Is there a scenario where SMITH DNA would be all that is needed?
I mean, fathers do sometimes have relations with their daughters; we might find it scandalous but it does occur... so, in this case, the DNA could be doubling up, if you know what I mean? There are more SMITH DNA matches than expected.

Or is it more likely that Mrs JONES nee SMITH had an affair with TAYLOR, and I should search for Mr TAYLOR?
Or?..

Baby JONES is clearly part of this JONES-SMITH family, in an extended sense. But is not a JONES.

Where to go from here?
D
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 17:48 BST (UK)
Anything is possible. There is a family on a distant branch of my tree, they had several children over a long span of years, they are recorded in the census as all children of the  couple. I took this as the fact (they were too distant to warrant the expense of certificates etc). It is was only when watching an episode of Heir Hunters who happened to be researching the same family, that revealed it was not the case.
 
The last but one child was the illegitimate child of the eldest daughter. The couple  deliberately went on to have another child themselves in an effort to conceal the true  situation. A salutary lesson to take some family relationships in the census with a large pinch of salt.

A salutary lesson indeed. Thank you.

I'm wondering if these unexpected DNA results are able to deliver the true story, and if so, how?
A good strong part of them definitely pertains to this family unit, but DNA from the husband's side, let's call it JONES, appears to be missing. So the JONES child I'm investigating only has DNA from the mother's side of the family, from SMITH. But was called JONES, and so were all their offspring.

Is there a scenario where SMITH DNA would be all that is needed?
I mean, fathers do sometimes have relations with their daughters; we might find it scandalous but it does occur... so, in this case, the DNA could be doubling up, if you know what I mean? There are more SMITH DNA matches than expected.

Or is it more likely that Mrs JONES nee SMITH had an affair with TAYLOR, and I should search for Mr TAYLOR?
Or?..

Baby JONES is clearly part of this JONES-SMITH family, in an extended sense. But is not a JONES.

Where to go from here?
D
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 17:54 BST (UK)
To elaborate slightly, I have two cases in which young nieces were informally adopted by married but childless aunts.  In one case I think the adoption was an effort to help out a sister who had a lot of children and a neglectful, possibly even criminal, husband who eventually abandoned his family.  In the other case, the adopted niece also came from a large family but I think she went to live with her aunt to provide companionship not because of any problem in her own birth family.

Erato, thank you
The reasons for both these adoptions are different, but completely understandable and logical.
And the childless aunts had room, had space.

The situation I'm trying to understand is more confusing, because this family unit looks like a regular family unit with children evenly spaced, normal. However the DNA results mark out one child as having no DNA from the husband, although this child carries his name, and the name carried on down.

D

Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 17:55 BST (UK)
To elaborate slightly, I have two cases in which young nieces were informally adopted by married but childless aunts.  In one case I think the adoption was an effort to help out a sister who had a lot of children and a neglectful, possibly even criminal, husband who eventually abandoned his family.  In the other case, the adopted niece also came from a large family but I think she went to live with her aunt to provide companionship not because of any problem in her own birth family.

Erato, thank you
The reasons for both these adoptions are different, but completely understandable and logical.
And the childless aunts had room, had space.

The situation I'm trying to understand is more confusing to an observer, because this family unit looks like a regular family unit with children evenly spaced, normal. However the DNA results mark out one child as having no DNA from the husband, although this child carries his name, and the name carried on down.

D
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: brigidmac on Saturday 23 October 21 18:11 BST (UK)
Fascinating
Ive heard of a father refusing to acknowledge youngest child in one case he was away at war during time of conception
So that child was adopted

Can you give dna amounts of the matchex

Have i understood correctly that Jones child  Has matches to both maternal SMITH grandparents ie grandmothers maiden name too
But doesnt have matches to either JONES grandparents ?

Is there a cluster of matches to another surname ie TAYLOR that could explain an affair ( by the mother or grandmother)
If there was a double relationship it would explain higher levels of dna matches to SMITH but not necessarily incest. Could be a SMITH cousin or uncle involved.


Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 18:17 BST (UK)
Fascinating
Ive heard of a father refusing to acknowledge youngest child in one case he was away at war during time of conception
So that child was adopted

Can you give dna amounts of the matchex

Have i understood correctly that Jones child  Has matches to both maternal SMITH grandparents ie grandmothers maiden name too
But doesnt have matches to either JONES grandparents ?

Is there a cluster of matches to another surname ie TAYLOR that could explain an affair ( by the mother or grandmother)
If there was a double relationship it would explain higher levels of dna matches to SMITH but not necessarily incest. Could be a SMITH cousin or uncle involved.

brigidmac
Thanks for offering to help.
I need some insight here! I am not a DNA expert.

Please bear with me, I will fetch the amounts (cm) for you to look at.

D
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 19:29 BST (UK)
Fascinating
Ive heard of a father refusing to acknowledge youngest child in one case he was away at war during time of conception
So that child was adopted

Can you give dna amounts of the matchex

Have i understood correctly that Jones child  Has matches to both maternal SMITH grandparents ie grandmothers maiden name too
But doesnt have matches to either JONES grandparents ?

Is there a cluster of matches to another surname ie TAYLOR that could explain an affair ( by the mother or grandmother)
If there was a double relationship it would explain higher levels of dna matches to SMITH but not necessarily incest. Could be a SMITH cousin or uncle involved.

brigidmac
Thanks for your fresh pair of eyes.
I'll supply some details. Please ask for whatever else you need.

Family set-up:
Mr JONES, from out of county, marries Miss SMITH, 1862.

(The couple then live next door to Mr SMITH + Mrs SMITH (nee BAKER), the bride's parents, who had a lot of SMITH children over many years. Miss SMITH is their eldest daughter.)

Children (JONES + SMITH) are recorded, see baptisms, censuses etc:
1863 (dau 1)
1865 (son 1)
1867 (son 2)
1869 (dau 2)
1870 (dau 3)
1875  (son 3)
1880  (son 4)

The DNA puzzle refers to Son 2 (born 1867).
The DNA should show for him JONES (plus JONES ancestors i.e. his father's line) + SMITH (his mother's line), but the results seem only to contain SMITH + BAKER. These are matches to his mother and maternal grandmother, yes, but that's all.

There are other matches in the 20,000+ batch, of course, which haven't yet been explored, but all the obvious things have been tried and they aren't leading to anywhere JONESY.

The JONES + SMITH Son 2 born 1867 called himself JONES and baptised his own children JONES. So the JONES name has gone on down.

A descendant of Dau 3 has been located and DNA results compared. They match the SMITH. So the SMITH mother is shared with Son 2.

The DNA results for this case are good and accurate, in that they show expected and required matches to all other branches of the family - except for this one son, who appears to lack his father's DNA... but there seems an excess of matches to SMITH.

What can I show you now, which could assist?



Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: brigidmac on Saturday 23 October 21 20:00 BST (UK)
so does daughter 3 s descendents have matches to father jones + his mother surname X ?

probably better to post examles on a chart on dna forum

would need to know amount of dna cm shared between supposed 2nd and third cousin matches

personally i manage my mothers and cousins dna matches we are descended from real smith and jones remarriages so i understand amounts of half second cousins etc
also my mothers second cousin has authorised me to see her dna matches which helps for elimination

for example my mothers full first cousin is 1.137cm
half first cousin is 336cm
half first cousins once removed range from 220cm -260cm
but its a wide range
there is a dna painters chart to compare and if you have dna linked to your tree thru line possibilities will show up

Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 20:10 BST (UK)
so does daughter 3 s descendents have matches to father jones + his mother surname X ?

probably better to post examles on a chart on dna forum

would need to know amount of dna cm shared between supposed 2nd and third cousin matches

personally i manage my mothers and cousins dna matches we are descended from real smith and jones remarriages so i understand amounts of half second cousins etc
also my mothers second cousin has authorised me to see her dna matches which helps for elimination

for example my mothers full first cousin is 1.137cm
half first cousin is 336cm
half first cousins once removed range from 220cm -260cm
but its a wide range
there is a dna painters chart to compare and if you have dna linked to your tree thru line possibilities will show up

brigidmac
Thank you so much.

The purpose of this post is to gather suggestions about what might have happened.
I am pretty confident that JONES is missing. But SMITH is in abundance.

I like to have a plan of action... beginning with the most likely option.

Regarding Son 2's father (who I now believe isn't JONES, because of the DNA results).
Do you feel I should be considering the involvement of:
a) Mrs Jones' own father (SMITH), as her Son 2's father; or
b) Mrs Jones' lover (TAYLOR), as Son 2's father; or
c) Could Son 2 be a child of Mrs Jones' unmarried younger sister (SMITH)? or
d) Could Son 2 be a very late child of Mr + Mrs Smith senior who live next door?

or....?

Where is it best to start looking, given the family practices of the time?

D



Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: brigidmac on Saturday 23 October 21 20:28 BST (UK)
 i shouldnt really hazard a guess but i think solution c or d are more likely

out of interest were all the children baptised at same church
any clues in the first or middle names

this may have been a secret known only to miss smith /mrs jones so she wouldnt have wanted to leave any clues
if it was adopted child her husband would have known ... did he leave a will was this child treated equally .did they stay close to other family members ?

all sorts of things to investigate

the dna can help you eliminate some possibilities if you have testees from an older generation  otherwise there is plenty of room for error
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 23 October 21 21:49 BST (UK)
i shouldnt really hazard a guess but i think solution c or d are more likely

out of interest were all the children baptised at same church
any clues in the first or middle names

this may have neen a secret known only to miss smith /mrs jones so she wouldnt have wanted to leave any clues
if it was adopted child her husband would have known ... did he leave a will was this child treated equally .did they stay close to other family members ?

all sorts of things to investigate

the dna can help you eliminate some possibilities if you have testees from an older generation  otherwise there is plenty of room for error

brigidmac
Your ideas are very welcome :-)
Most of the time we have to get there by guessing, don't we!
I will collect the details you mention (which church? etc), so there is more to look at.
And I'll write back to you via the messaging system, bless you.
D
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: brigidmac on Sunday 24 October 21 10:11 BST (UK)
Thanks for pms Dulcie
Please share your discoveries on the post for others who are interested.

Personally its made me relook at my own matches .why i have lots of dna matches to descendants of great grandparents and none to others .

Luckily both my mother and paternal aunt tested when in their late 80s so sometimes the more distant matches show to them .




Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: brigidmac on Monday 25 October 21 18:21 BST (UK)
Heres a link that i found helpful
*
https://isogg.org/wiki/Cousin_statistics

Also you asked what kind of match you could expect .
A personal example ..my great grandfather had a half brother whose great grandson shares 35cm with me
We are same generation so half third cousins .
If you are lucky you may get a similar match
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Monday 25 October 21 18:52 BST (UK)
Heres a link that i found helpful
*
https://isogg.org/wiki/Cousin_statistics

Also you asked what kind of match you could expect .
A personal example ..my great grandfather had a half brother whose great grandson shares 35cm with me
We are same generation so half third cousins .
If you are lucky you may get a similar match

brigidmac
That's a super link, very many thanks.
I will post up shortly some of the things I've discovered while you've been helping me.

Your support makes a real positive difference.
D
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Tuesday 26 October 21 11:07 BST (UK)
I'm posting this now:
a) to thank RootsChat member brigidmac (all other contributors) from the bottom of my heart, and
b) to help anyone else who's on a similar search.

I took a DNA test this summer and it has blown apart my Family Tree, which I've spent 30 years creating. It's shown that what's in the records isn't necessarily the correct information. In my case, no matches at all came up for my surname i.e. my Dad's line, his father's side. Was it all a mistake? A rubbish test, a bad service? Or - was my name not really my name?

Well... the DNA test is accurate, and it's what's written down in the records which is not correct. You might find the very same thing, in your own family!

I am 'repairing' things (building the new, correct line for my late Dad) by carefully examining the DNA results back to 4th cousins, connecting with the people I find, and - especially - going back to the records for a new look, with different eyes.

brigidmac suggested I re-visit church records and looked for clues in among what the 19th century family was doing, when + when the baptisms were conducted, where the family was living etc. And the clues are there, I'd just never noticed them before. Also a fresh look at the censuses revealed tiny but hugely important things I'd never 'clocked', but which now make very good sense.

So my advice would be: trust the DNA... and if it shocks or surprises you, still trust it and go back to the paperwork with a very open heart and mind.  All may not be what it seems.

In my case, I was right to ask RootsChat about 'large family structures' because the responses showed me what to look for... and I've been finding what I need.

Please share your own stories here too, because stories I've read on this site have also guided me towards The Truth in my own case.










Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: brigidmac on Tuesday 26 October 21 12:04 BST (UK)
  well done Dulcie

you dont have to completely rewrite your tree
you can add the adopted parents as alternative or tag their relationship in comments

but put birth parents as preferred options if you want to understand the DNA links

you said the baptisms helped but didnt say HOW on this topic
Hope you dont mind me copying this from pm because i think it could help other people 

   "Seven JONES children, on the censuses.
1 + 2 were baptised together March 1869, aged 6 and 4.
No 3 (my great-grandfather) not baptised in sequence.
No. "4" baptised Oct 1869 shortly after she was born, as if no. 3 in the list.
No. 5, birth recorded Oct 1870 but baptism I can't yet find...
No. 6 baptised aged 1, alongside my great-grandfather who is now 7
No. 7 born 1880, can't yet find baptism

The 1871 census supports this out-of-sequence-ness, the children are listed thus:
No. 1 aged 7 (already baptised)
No. 2. aged 5 (already baptised)
No. 4 aged 1 (already baptised)
then No. 3 (my great-grandfather), aged 3, not yet baptised
No. 5, aged 4 months

This suggests that my great-grandfather joined the JONES family some time between the end of 1869 and census-time 1871. But not in 1867, which is what his birth year seems to be.

good luck unravelling the birth parents


Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Tuesday 26 October 21 12:32 BST (UK)
  well done Dulcie

you dont have to completely rewrite your tree
you can add the adopted parents as alternative or tag their relationship in comments

but put birth parents as preferred options if you want to understand the DNA links

you said the baptisms helped but didnt say HOW on this topic
Hope you dont mind me copying this from pm because i think it could help other people 

   "Seven JONES children, on the censuses.
1 + 2 were baptised together March 1869, aged 6 and 4.
No 3 (my great-grandfather) not baptised in sequence.
No. "4" baptised Oct 1869 shortly after she was born, as if no. 3 in the list.
No. 5, birth recorded Oct 1870 but baptism I can't yet find...
No. 6 baptised aged 1, alongside my great-grandfather who is now 7
No. 7 born 1880, can't yet find baptism

The 1871 census supports this out-of-sequence-ness, the children are listed thus:
No. 1 aged 7 (already baptised)
No. 2. aged 5 (already baptised)
No. 4 aged 1 (already baptised)
then No. 3 (my great-grandfather), aged 3, not yet baptised
No. 5, aged 4 months

This suggests that my great-grandfather joined the JONES family some time between the end of 1869 and census-time 1871. But not in 1867, which is what his birth year seems to be.

good luck unravelling the birth parents

Hi brigidmac
Feel free to use anything I've written, it's all OK and truthful.

On your advice I carried on collecting Baptisms and family addresses and census entries and, especially, dates and orders-of-doing-things.

I discovered there were 9 'JONES' children in total, not 7. But two of them seem not to have had any Birth registration, only a baptism and then a Death, because the babies didn't survive long.

My ancestor Henry is listed as Number 3 in the family where he's visible on censuses, however he was not treated as Number 3 in terms of arrival as a baby. And on the 1871 census he's placed lower down the list of children than you'd expect (after some younger ones).

His Birth was registered April 1867, under 'JONES'.
But a JONES baby born 1869 was baptised before him.
Also the 2 babies who didn't survive were baptised before him, in 1872 and 1873.

My ancestor Henry wasn't baptised until 1874, alongside a new JONES arrival called Samuel.

I asked RootsChat where children might be 'placed' (for accommodation) among the family, and lots of good ideas were given. "Anything is possible", was suggested. Children were placed anywhere there was room. But generally, it was within the wider family if possible.

So: something is clearly wrong, according to my DNA results, and things were not as I believed. Was my Henry the product of e.g. an affair for Mrs JONES (with Mr 'TAYLOR'), or e.g. the illegitimate child of a younger sister of Mrs JONES, who had a boyfriend ('BROWN')?

The DNA results and ThruLines and links strongly suggest that there isn't any additional genetic material, no other family involved, no TAYLOR, no BROWN, nothing else at all.
Which (I am told) points to Henry (born 1867) being Mrs JONES' much, much younger brother, 25 years her junior, whom she took on board, named JONES and brought up within her own family. Perhaps Henry was immediately registered as JONES so he felt that he 'belonged'?
But Henry's real parents are his Gran + Grandfather ('SMITH'), next door...

The DNA contains a large batch of links back to Mr & Mrs SMITH (born 1819 + 1820), larger than expected.

Comments welcome. Please help me nail this down. But I'm pretty sure I'm in the right place now.

D




Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: brigidmac on Thursday 28 October 21 09:17 BST (UK)
out of interest were the children in order of gender on census
sometimes boys are listed before girls so maybe your grandfather was the only one out of order

I have seen other cases where step children are listed below birth children

I think its worth putting up a separate topic about baptism order as a general topic

im investigating a family where first child b 1898 was baptised after child 2,3,4 +5  in 1906
but there may have been another reason
   link to baptism  topic *

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=854707.msg7228813#msg7228813
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Thursday 28 October 21 12:45 BST (UK)
out of interest were the children in order of gender on census
sometimes boys are listed before girls so maybe your grandfather was the only one out of order

I have seen other cases where step children are listed below birth children

I think its worth putting up a separate topic about baptism order as a general topic

im investigating a family where first child b 1898 was baptised after child 2,3,4 +5  in 1906
but there may have been another reason
   link to baptism  topic *

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=854707.msg7228813#msg7228813

brigidmac
The children were listed as you would expect, on the 1871 census - listed in order of age, regardless of gender - all except my Henry who was lower down than he should be.
Could have been a clerical error? Except that his baptism was also very much 'lower down' the order than you would expect.
The children were baptised in chronological order, boys mixed with girls - all except my Henry who seemed to be delayed or  and baptised alongside a baby boy, when the baby was 1 but Henry was 7.

I don't think Henry was forgotten about... or too ill... because 2 of the babies were clearly not well, but were still baptised years before him, at a proper service, nevertheless.

Yes, introducing a separate topic would bring in more stories I expect, and we can gain a wider picture of families' behaviour.

D



Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: Peter L. Mitchell on Monday 01 November 21 01:12 GMT (UK)
Hi Dulciebun.

My great-great grandmother gave birth to an illegitimate girl in 1848, then married the (supposed) father two years later, In 1860 the family emigrated to Australia but the girl was left behind. She had been working as a domestic for her childless aunt and lived with her until she married in 1874. Nobody in the family mentioned it and I only discovered it by accident six months ago.

Good luck with your research!

Peter
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: teragram31510 on Tuesday 02 November 21 17:54 GMT (UK)
Hello Dulciebun,

I found this thread very interesting - not that I know anything about DNA.

You wrote:
<The DNA results and ThruLines and links strongly suggest that there isn't any additional genetic material, no other family involved, no TAYLOR, no BROWN, nothing else at all.
Which (I am told) points to Henry (born 1867) being Mrs JONES' much, much younger brother, 25 years her junior, whom she took on board, named JONES and brought up within her own family.>

If this were indeed the case, might it have been because Henry's and Mrs Jones' mother, having borne a child at a late age, died at the birth or fairly soon after? Do you have the date of death of Mrs Smith? Yes, the child, Henry, might easily have been called Jones to "make life easier" for the family, I'd say.
Another aspect is that Mrs Jones had had a child in 1863 then another in 1865. Did she in fact have a third baby in 1867 that died or was stillborn, I wonder, but meant that Mrs Jones was able to wetnurse her baby brother Henry? (Her own children seem to have been conceived with the usual 1 to 2 year gap except for the child born '65 and the following apparently in '69.)

Just a few more thoughts !!
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: brigidmac on Wednesday 03 November 21 02:46 GMT (UK)
Brilliant deductions Sherlock
I love how rootschat detective look at all angles .make deductions and look for proof .
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 06 November 21 20:46 GMT (UK)
Hello Dulciebun,

I found this thread very interesting - not that I know anything about DNA.

You wrote:
<The DNA results and ThruLines and links strongly suggest that there isn't any additional genetic material, no other family involved, no TAYLOR, no BROWN, nothing else at all.
Which (I am told) points to Henry (born 1867) being Mrs JONES' much, much younger brother, 25 years her junior, whom she took on board, named JONES and brought up within her own family.>

If this were indeed the case, might it have been because Henry's and Mrs Jones' mother, having borne a child at a late age, died at the birth or fairly soon after? Do you have the date of death of Mrs Smith? Yes, the child, Henry, might easily have been called Jones to "make life easier" for the family, I'd say.
Another aspect is that Mrs Jones had had a child in 1863 then another in 1865. Did she in fact have a third baby in 1867 that died or was stillborn, I wonder, but meant that Mrs Jones was able to wetnurse her baby brother Henry? (Her own children seem to have been conceived with the usual 1 to 2 year gap except for the child born '65 and the following apparently in '69.)

Just a few more thoughts !!

teregram31510

Thank you for your thoughts, they're really helpful.
I've followed up your ideas, in fact I found someone has done a 1-name study of this 'SMITH' family in Birmingham UK, which helps me see the larger picture.

Looking at the 2 families living side by side [SMITH parents, and their eldest daughter SMITH + husband JONES], it seems they were sharing out the youngsters between the 2 properties so that there were more or less equal numbers in each home (avoiding overcrowding). Also, it may be that Mrs SMITH felt that the baby, her very youngest and last, would fit in better with the young children next door, rather than being brought up among her own 20-something and older teenage children who were still at home...?

Mrs SMITH lived another 20 years after the birth of this last baby, having wed at about age 17. So it doesn't seem to be illness or desperate need which caused her baby to be passed next door. I'm chasing up your suggestion that the daughter (Mrs JONES) could have lost a baby in 1867 [where there is a gap in her own childbearing, as you rightly point out], and so her tiny brother SMITH may have been passed to her, to care for.  Will report back.




Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Saturday 06 November 21 20:53 GMT (UK)
Hi Dulciebun.

My great-great grandmother gave birth to an illegitimate girl in 1848, then married the (supposed) father two years later, In 1860 the family emigrated to Australia but the girl was left behind. She had been working as a domestic for her childless aunt and lived with her until she married in 1874. Nobody in the family mentioned it and I only discovered it by accident six months ago.

Good luck with your research!

Peter

Hi Peter
Many thanks for sharing your own story.

I'm thinking that the girl who was left behind may have formed an emotional bond with her childless aunt and preferred to stay where she was, when the parents emigrated?

That's assuming that the girl knew whose daughter she was...!

How exactly did you discover this situation? (you say 'by accident')

D x
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: JenB on Saturday 06 November 21 21:18 GMT (UK)
Quote

How exactly did you discover this situation? (you say 'by accident')


I think Peter must be referring to the story of Elizabeth Dial.

I wouldn’t exactly say she was found by accident. Rather a lot of hard work by Rootschatters went into piecing the story together!

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=840771.msg7068545#msg7068545
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: Ruskie on Saturday 06 November 21 22:59 GMT (UK)
An interesting thread.  :)

I understand your curiosity about your DNA matches and the need to try to work out what might have been going on in the family.

It’s a bit late to add my tuppence worth as the thread has already had lots of contributions, but depending on what proof you can find, I would suggest not to read too much in children living with other relatives. If the only evidence you have is finding the child on the census for example, that is one day in ten years, and you can’t really draw any conclusions from that alone.

It was so common to ship kids out to other family members for all sorts of reasons. :)

Order of baptisms? Unsure if you can glean much from that - I think many of us have some illogical examples in our families - including missing births/baptisms.  :)

I love how rootschat detective look at all angles .make deductions and look for proof .

Isn’t it advisable to collect the facts/evidence first, then try to work out a likely series of events, rather than concocting a story and then looking for proof to fit that narrative/theory?   :-\

Added:
Are “Smith” and “Jones” their real surnames? I found it difficult to follow your mentions of child 1, 2 and various relationships. As these people are long dead, giving their full names might make it easier to follow and unravel the quite complex (possible) relationships. Though it might just be me getting very muddled.  ;D

As I’m sure you already know, DNA can be quite randomly passed down, even skipping generations. I have some examples of this in my family. Have you tested later generations, and other family members to see what their results show?

Good luck with the search.
 
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Sunday 07 November 21 09:18 GMT (UK)
An interesting thread.  :)

I understand your curiosity about your DNA matches and the need to try to work out what might have been going on in the family.

It’s a bit late to add my tuppence worth as the thread has already had lots of contributions, but depending on what proof you can find, I would suggest not to read too much in children living with other relatives. If the only evidence you have is finding the child on the census for example, that is one day in ten years, and you can’t really draw any conclusions from that alone.

It was so common to ship kids out to other family members for all sorts of reasons. :)

Order of baptisms? Unsure if you can glean much from that - I think many of us have some illogical examples in our families - including missing births/baptisms.  :)

I love how rootschat detective look at all angles .make deductions and look for proof .

Isn’t it advisable to collect the facts/evidence first, then try to work out a likely series of events, rather than concocting a story and then looking for proof to fit that narrative/theory?   :-\




Ruskie
You're very wise and experienced and I respect everything you say here.
You're not muddled at all.

To explain: In this particular case, the family is my own. A few months ago I received my DNA results - which didn't show what I expected, not at all. I haven't given the true surnames on RootsChat (for my own privacy), however if you would keep them out of the public eye, I can send them to you in a private message?

Since I received my Very Strange Results, I have done a lot of digging, and asking, and uncovering.
And I now know that the surname I was born with, isn't my surname at all.

I agree that it's far better to start with the facts and build a story from those. (It's never advisable to force facts to fit a pet theory.)

If I were just researching something I'd spotted on a census, and then wondered about, I wouldn't be able to be so sure about the truth. But because this matter is personal, and it's my own family, I can be a lot more certain.

And the ideas and tips given to me on RootsChat did point me in the right direction.

I hope that helps.

D x
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Sunday 07 November 21 09:29 GMT (UK)








Added:
Are “Smith” and “Jones” their real surnames? I found it difficult to follow your mentions of child 1, 2 and various relationships. As these people are long dead, giving their full names might make it easier to follow and unravel the quite complex (possible) relationships. Though it might just be me getting very muddled.  ;D


P.S. Ruskie
I don't know which country you're based in.
I live in the UK. If we are trying to make things anonymous, we reach for the surnames 'Smith' and 'Jones' because they are so numerous and so very common.

"Alias Smith and Jones", it's a phrase in the language.

There was even a UK comedy show some decades back called "ALAS Smith and Jones" ['alas', as in 'oh dear'!!... it's not a spelling mistake] - but it does refer, in a comic way, to the names we commonly use, to disguise out true identity.

Mr & Mrs Smith is also a regular thing that couples write when signing a hotel register, for a secret night of passion... (I've worked in hotels!)

An analogy: I think the Spaniards use Gonzales as their all-purpose surname (please correct me if wrong). Perhaps all countries have their own regular surnames used as aliases, I'd like to know more.

D x
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: Peter L. Mitchell on Friday 03 December 21 11:50 GMT (UK)
Hi folks.

I just saw JenB's comment and had to clarify "I found her by accident six months ago." What I meant was that I first became aware of her existence when I noticed an anomaly in the 1851 census. My great-great grandparents had married in 1850 but the census named Elizabeth aged 2 years as their daughter. It was only through the amazing work of several RootsChat contributors (including JenB, who did a brilliant job - thank you!) that the whole story unfolded.

Like everyone else who uses this site I am incredibly grateful for the wonderful advice, help and support so freely given by so many incredibly knowledgeable people.

Thank you everyone!

Peter
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: guest259648 on Friday 03 December 21 14:03 GMT (UK)
Hi folks.

I just saw JenB's comment and had to clarify "I found her by accident six months ago." What I meant was that I first became aware of her existence when I noticed an anomaly in the 1851 census. My great-great grandparents had married in 1850 but the census named Elizabeth aged 2 years as their daughter. It was only through the amazing work of several RootsChat contributors (including JenB, who did a brilliant job - thank you!) that the whole story unfolded.

Like everyone else who uses this site I am incredibly grateful for the wonderful advice, help and support so freely given by so many incredibly knowledgeable people.

Thank you everyone!

Peter

Hi Peter
I fully understand the surprise of noticing anomalies... which then lead to further discoveries... and indeed it was completely accidental that you discovered something about your family which you never knew or you were never told.

Look at me:  my DNA results have shown me that my surname isn't my surname! Accidental discovery. I'm still getting used to it.

Yes, like yourself, I'm guided by very many wonderful people on this site who know things I don't.  It's a collective effort, and together we can supply the pieces, and the keys, to unlock long-standing mysteries.

x
Title: Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
Post by: shanreagh on Sunday 05 December 21 06:51 GMT (UK)

""Room for one more". I really like that."

My grandmother a very hospitable lady born in Ireland who migrated to NZ then had 9 children of her own used this phrase as well in relation to offering a meal or a roof over the head for visiting school teachers or travelling religious people of any denomination.