Author Topic: *Completed - A forgiving husband, or PR error?  (Read 1792 times)

Offline Roger The Hat

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
    • View Profile
*Completed - A forgiving husband, or PR error?
« on: Tuesday 25 January 11 14:27 GMT (UK) »
Hi,

I have a Parish Records cd (also on the IGI) which clearly lists George Munsey (bapt. 15 Sept 1844), as the illegitimate son of John Peters and Anne Munsey.
However, in the 1851 census George Muncey (b. 1845), is transcribed as son of John Muncey and Ann (nee Sindall), same location.

Considering that John Muncey married Ann Sindall in 1820, and they were still together in 1861, does this mean Ann admitted an indiscretion, which John Muncey accepted by taking George as his own, or is the Parish Record wrong?

I don't understand why Ann, if she had been playing away, would have admitted the affair, but in the absence of a second George, I don't see an alternative.

Or is there?


'Hat.


Offline california dreamin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,121
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A forgiving husband, or PR error?
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 25 January 11 14:56 GMT (UK) »
Hi

Hope I have understood your question properly - My question to you is - don't you think it is odd that if George was  born in 1844/45 & John Muncey & Ann Sinddall married in 1820 that they didn't have any children for 14 or 15 yrs (or if there were other children that she was still having children after 14 or 15 years?!).  ??? Have you perhaps lost a generation somewhere?

Offline MrsLady

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A forgiving husband, or PR error?
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 25 January 11 15:04 GMT (UK) »
My great gran is on a census listed as "daughter" when I know the "parents" actually aren't!  think there was a secret being covered up though!
MILLS of Llanidloes
EVANS of Llanidloes Siblings born in 1700s Thomas, David, John, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth.  Thomas was in East India Co.
FIELD - Ephraim - Hertfordshire
JEFFERY - London and Devon
ABBOTT - Devon


Offline california dreamin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,121
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A forgiving husband, or PR error?
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 25 January 11 15:09 GMT (UK) »
I take your point, but perhaps an assumption on the part of the enumerator?

My other thought here is that John Muncey who married Ann Sinddall may have had a sister named Anne Muncey who was involved with a John Peters. Have you found John Peters enumerated anywhere? Did he ever get married?

Offline nanny jan

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,634
  • Russian John
    • View Profile
Re: A forgiving husband, or PR error?
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 25 January 11 15:11 GMT (UK) »
HI,

On 1841 census there's a John and Ann Muncey, in Cambridgeshire, with a 19yr old Ann Muncey in the household.  Perhaps that Ann is George's mother?


HO107   68   3   1



Nanny Jan
Howard , Viney , Kingsman, Pain/e, Rainer/ Rayner, Barham, George, Wakeling (Catherine), Vicary (Frederick)   all LDN area/suburbs  Ottley/ MDX,
Henman/ KNT   Gandy/LDN before 1830  Burgess/LDN
Barham/SFK   Rainer/CAN (Toronto) Gillians/CAN  Sturgeon/CAN (Vancouver)
Bailey/LDN Page/KNT   Paling/WA (var)



All census look-ups are crown copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: A forgiving husband, or PR error?
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday 25 January 11 15:24 GMT (UK) »
Nineteenth-century usages for kin relationships were sometimes different from those used today. The offspring of married children resident in the household were sometimes called 'son' or 'daughter' rather than grandchild; referring to their parents rather than the head-grandparents. Sometimes the presence of an unmarried daughter of child-bearing age in the household will raise the suspicion that the infant 'sons' and 'daughters' of elderly parents might be illegitimate grandchildren.


Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Roger The Hat

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
    • View Profile
Re: A forgiving husband, or PR error?
« Reply #6 on: Tuesday 25 January 11 17:07 GMT (UK) »
I think, together, you have almost certainly summed up the actual situation.

If George was the illegitimate son of Ann's daughter Anne, then that would explain the PR's and the census entry.   
I shall have a look at daughter Anne, and see what I can find.
 
Thank you all for the excellent responses.   8) 8)

'Hat.