Rosalia and Lucy JARVIS

[jorose]

Another possible Jane France was chrs. in Dawley Magna 28 Jul 1857 - daughter of Thomas and Lydia.
This family also used the surname "Francis", and I think they married under that name in Bath in 1852 - Lydia nee Sargent.

A possible link, is to this Lucy previously found:
(2) The 12 yr old daughter of John & Sarah (baptised 22 Apr 1869, Christ Church, Wellington).

John Jarvis m. possibly Sarah France, 1866 Wellington District.

[avm228]

A possible link, is to this Lucy previously found:
(2) The 12 yr old daughter of John & Sarah (baptised 22 Apr 1869, Christ Church, Wellington).

John Jarvis m. possibly Sarah France, 1866 Wellington District.

Brilliant.  I think this is going to be the link.

Marriage, 23 Sep 1866, Christ Church, Wellington

John JARVIS 25 bach miner of Watling St.  Father: Enoch JARVIS, miner.
Sarah FRANCE 20 spinster of Watling St.  Father: John FRANCE, farmer.

Witnesses: John POULTER, Mary JARVIS.

[avm228]

So Sarah the mother of Lucy(2) may have been a sister of Thomas's 2nd wife Jane.

[jorose]

Sending the kid off to Lucy's aunty in Lancashire would seem to be a better option than having her adopted out by someone unfamiliar.

A possible for Lucy:
Lucy Ann Jarvis m. Thomas McManus in 1888 Blackburn area.
They are in Preston by 1901 - she is b. Wellington 1869 on censuses.  (But no "Lucy Ann" birth to be found)
Died 1903 in Preston area aged 34  (possibly complications from pregnancy/childbirth as the last child looks to also have been born 1903).

This would be a coincidental Thomas, I think - if he was Rosalia's father and willing to marry Lucy the marriage would have been sooner and Rosalia would have probably stayed with them.  It's more likely that Thomas and Jane Chambers looked after baby Rosalia and also helped Lucy find work in the area - where she then met her husband.

Under these circumstances, Lucy and Rosalia might have kept in touch, and Rosalia might have known her step-siblings.  Although the family might also have maintained the polite fiction that they were in fact "cousins" or something.

[avm228]

Yes, that all looks plausible.  The 1888 marriage of Lucy Ann Jarvis to Thomas McManus was either a Catholic marriage or a register office one (per LancashireBMD) so no further information will be available without ordering the certificate.

Of course we don't know when the child was placed with the Chambers couple, other than that she was with them by 1891 - it could have been soon after birth, or alternatively she may have been left with them when Lucy was getting married if her new husband did not want to take on an illegitimate child.

[lizdb]

Wow - just come back to this after a break;

Job well done team!

[Bonnietas]

Thankyou all for your prompt replies, I will go through all that you have provided and suggested over the next few days although Christmas is fast taking over my focus! .  Fantastic info overnight....it great to have resources like yourselves when we are on the other side of the world!.....Yvonne

[Bonnietas]

Hello there everyone,  I hope that yoyu all had a great Christmas and New year.

The Census of 1911 shows a bit of a different story for the family of Thomas and Jane Chambers and John and Rosella Foster.  They are living at 11 Hogan St, Salford.  Thomas and Jane’s ages however don’t quite match those on a previous census but the address confirms that this is the correct family.  The census records that Thomas is 65 and Jane 48 and they have been married for 28 years.  Interestingly they have recorded that 1 child was born of this marriage and that this child still survives, this would be my great grandmother Rosella (Roselia, Rose E)  There is no mention of any children for a previous marriage for Thomas and I wonder what became of them as there was quite a number, and it seems strange, as some of you have said for Thomas and Jane to take on a child that does not appear to be their own.  Thomas is a Loco driver working for the railway and he lists his birthplace as Kent Blackwall.  Thomas seems to have 'chosen' different bithplaces as well.
What was suprising was the time difference between the death of Thomas's first wife Elizabeth and his marriage to Jane.  Elizabeth was buried on th 17th of December and the first banns called on the the 30th just two weeks later! Based on what we see and nothing more, could it be that Thomas just walked away from his family in favour of Jane?  On the surface it looks a bit sad (not the word I am thinking though).
The census of 1871 shows shows that Thomas and Elizabeth had several children including 6 month old baby Jane , however Jane is not shown on the 1881 census and I can't find any records for her birth or death.

Thanks for the info about the 1901 census as I havent been able to locate that, so will have to try harder.

avm228 on: Monday 15 December 14 15:08 GMT (UK)  mentions Rosella's description as "A. Daug" in 1891 seems (in the context we know of) to indicate she was adopted.  Would this have been the 1891 census, again I dont seem to be able to locate this if anyone can help?

Thanks again for your most valuable help.     Yvonne

[Annie65115]

The 1891 census entry is here (actually it was me who mentioned it )

 Class: RG12   Piece: 3026   Folio: 101   Page: 36

but if you search for James Brownbill yob 1866, wife Clara, in St Helen's, you'll find them there mistranscribed.