RootsChat.Com

fredflo,

On the question of marital status, perhaps it was simply an error by the workhouse?  And perhaps that description simply continued on (including when she was employed as a servant in the 1871 - perhaps recommended by the workhouse where her daughter Harriet had been born in 1869). And remember, she couldn't write and possibly couldn't read so she might well not have known how her marital status was recorded in the workhouse records or in censuses.  And she certainly would not have been the one completing the census forms.

Or perhaps she had to portray herself as unmarried in order to be accepted for poor relief?  I wonder whether there is any mention of her in the workhouse records.  Although the following site says relatively few records survive it might nevertheless be worth an enquiry to the Devon Records Office?:
http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?Crediton/Crediton.shtml

On the 1891, 1901 and 1911 censuses, Elizabeth would have given the information herself and therefore she stated that she was a widow (either quite truthfully or for reasons of respectability).

Regards,

JAP

Thanks for the above suggestions. I did ask in the Devon office for the Crediton workhouse records a while ago and they didn't have much but I will pursue that and ask again.

I think the reason she might have been in Crediton was that the Union covered the birth village of her husband and I know for a while that a married/widowed woman came under the responsibility of her husband's Poor Law Union rather than her own, which was the South Molton Union.

She must have been the talk of the town with her constant trips back to the workhouse to have illegitimate babies and I wonder if after she had the last one, they made her stay there (to keep her from having any more).

Her own granddaughter (as an old lady) described Elizabeth as a "flighty piece", which she clearly was!

If anyone comes across any other instances of married woman having babies outside of marriage, where the birth certificate doesn't record the maiden name, I'd be grateful to hear about it.

Thanks for your interest in this one Jap.
Fredflo

If it's any help - here are the census returns for them

1871

Heazille Barton, Rewe, Devon
(living in with farmer & family)
Elizabeth Sloman serv. unm. 34 Serv general b. Devon, Burrington

Ware's Buildings, St Thomas, Exeter, Devon
(living with paternal grandparents)
Ellen Sloman G.Dau 6 scholar b.Devon, Ashreigney

27 High St Crediton, Devon
(living with Wm Hopkins & wife - age 55/53 - labourer) no relation
Harriet Sloman nurse child 1 yr b. devon, Crediton

1881

Union Workhouse Crediton
Elizabeth SLOMAN     U    41 F  Inmate  b. Burrington, Devon
Susan SLOMAN                6 F  Inmate  Crediton, Devon
William SLOMAN               9 M  Inmate  Crediton, Devon

Ellen still living with paternal Gparents in Exeter
Harriet living in with farmer's family as a servant in Shobrooke Devon

1884 Ellen puts Christopher Sloman shoemaker deceased as her father on her marriage cert.

1891
Tolleys, Crediton
Elizabeth Sloman Head Wid 43 charwoman b.Devon Burrington (age wrong by 10 yrs)

1899 Harriet puts Christopher Sloman shoemaker deceased as her father on her marriage cert. (either not been told she was illegitimate or was lying)

1901
Tolleys, Crediton
Elizabeth Sloman Head Widow 66 charwoman b. Devon Burrington

1911
Same as 1901 but aged 74


I don't think posting this in the Devon section would help as the question isn't about Devon or even the name - it's more about trying to find reasons why someone would be classified as unmarried when they are either a widow or still married (but not with husband and having other children).

Thanks Charlotte
That could be a possibility for the 1871 census, although it's likely she got the position straight from the workhouse, where she had the 2nd child.

If that were the case, why would she be classed as unmarried on the 3 latter children's birth ceritificates as well as in the workhouse? They all had her husband's surname too (which she kept the rest of her life).