Ethel Maud Healey

[chellin2]

Hi Guys

Do you think with names like Pevoy and Bottriell they could have been migrants???
Maybe thats why they are not on the census and birth records

Chellin2

[chellin2]

Hi Guys

What do you think of this.
I have found a Ethel Maud Healey with her Grandmother Harriet in the 1901 census
RG12/545/16 page 38

Then in the 1891 census a Harriet and John Healey with a son Henry
RG/11/759/53 page 31

On the wedding certificate of Ethel Maud Pevoy her father was named Henry.

This is in the right area and I would like your thoughts

Chellin2

[avm228]

Just coming new to this thread, so apologies if I've missed anything, but could Ethel Maud PEAVOY born Dec qtr 1881 have been (informally) adopted by Henry HEALEY (and thereafter flitted between birth surname and adopted surname)?

I notice that there is a PEAVOY family in Epsom workhouse in 1881:

http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?Epsom/Epsom1881.shtml

- if Ethel was born to Margaret PEAVOY in the workhouse in late 1881 she might well have been offered for "adoption" to a local family.  My own ggg-grandparents took in two infants, unrelated to them, from a local workhouse in the 1870s and treated them as their own thereafter.

Any thoughts?

Anna

[chellin2]

Hi avm228

I think you might have hit the nail on the head.  the story is that my Nan was in home maybe she meant her Mother.

That is something for me to go on Thanks so much.

Now to solve the William Botteriel mystery

Chellin2

[chellin2]

Sorry to be a nuisance but is there any records of babies who were fostered out to families that I could try and find out if Ethel Maud Pevoy was with the Healey family.

Thanks

Chellin2

[Arranroots]

Hi Chellin2

I think I am right in saying that there would not have been any kind of national records at this date - even adoption did not become formalised until 1927.

If you can establish which parish Ethel Maud was from**, there is a chance that the local Board of Guardians minutes willreflect what happened to her, but often these arrangements were made informally and no records kept.

You just need one document that you can be sure of to start the ball rolling!

kind regards, Arranroots 

** Edit: Epsom would be a good place to start, since there is a chance she was in the workhouse.  Maybe someone on the Surrey board could help?  (Don;t forget to link to this thread if you post again - and keep us informed!)

[chellin2]

Hi Arranroots

I have sent for Ethel Maud Peavoys birth certificate so I will see what that tells us.

Thanks for all your kind help

Chellin2

[chellin2]

Hi everyone

Well I have just recieved Ethel Maud Peavoy's birth certificate and you were right she was born in the Union Workhouse in Epsom on the 11th May 1881 so now I think its correct to say that Ethel Maud Healey and Ethel Peavoy are one and the same person.  She must have been taken in by the Healeys or adopted by them.  I think Fostered is more likely as Peavoy is on the marriage certifcate and Healey is on my grandmothers birth certificate.

There is no Father on the birth certifcate just the Mother and she is Margaret Peavoy 1855 formerley Lyons born in Belfast Ireland.

This is all quite bizarre as my maiden name is Lyon without the S on the end and that is my fathers side and now I have a Lyons with an S on my Mothers side.

If anyone can help me find Margaret Lyons marriage certificate it would be much appreciated so that I can find her husbands christian name

Thanks a lot

Chellin2

[avm228]

Excellent - that does seem to make sense. 

The difference between adoption and fostering with which we are familiar today would not have existed at the time - it would just have been a question of the Healeys taking her in, informally, so that she did not have to stay in the workhouse.  When my ggg-grandparents took in two infants from their local workhouse the little girls kept their birth surnames, but were very much treated as members of the family.

I don't see any obvious Pe(a)voy-Lyons marriage on FreeBMD but will have a look at Margaret and family to see whether there's further progress which can be made.  If the marriage was in Ireland it would of course not appear in English records.

Anna