Author Topic: "Relative" on the census  (Read 4834 times)

Offline Ghostwheel

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #9 on: Friday 20 April 18 21:26 BST (UK) »
I know all that was very confusing.  I've probably used some possessive pronouns without clarity, as in "their children."

To clarify: I was not talking about an ancient Egyptian or Incan royal marriage - no brother and sister wedding each other.  The closest marriage I ever saw between Catholics in Ireland was 2nd cousins.  Most consanguineous dispensations that I've seen were not even for 2nd cousins, but either for 3rd cousins or 2nd-once-removed.  The Irish were not an inbred lot, at least not in the 1800s.

Sinann, that is an interesting point about the "nephew."  Ruskie, good point about names.

I am descended from John Brien, (m1808, my GGG grandfather) and know that I'm related to someone descended from Julia Brien (m1820, other's GGG grandmother).  It seems certain that they were related somehow.  I am not descended from either 1911 household (headed by their respective grandsons).  One head (c1911) was the brother of my G grandmother (b1870), so the wives of the heads on the census don't obviously enter into it.

I'm sorry, I know this is all very confusing, I'd give more names, but I'd hasten to add there is no direct connection.  I'm interested in the idea that John and Julia were brother and sister, as Julia (m1820) may have a surviving baptism record from 1799.  If  they were siblings, it follows that Julia's parents would be John's parents, ie. I've found my GGGG grandparents.  But John was older than the surviving record (only goes back to very late 1798), and he certainly has no surviving birth record, ie. John and Julia cannot be directly connected through their earlier ancestors.

The only evidence is circumstantial evidence, and it is kind of a weird parish.  There are different gaps, some small and some large.  The heads on the 1911 census were born in a large gap, they and their siblings have no surviving baptism records.  One even has no birth record, but I'm still able to trace it back to John (m1808) and Julia (m1820), their respective grandparents, with virtual certainty.

I have found various bits of circumstantial evidence - it is a very complicated theory.  But I'm sure nobody is interested in bits of very circumstantial evidence or very lateral names.  Suffice it to say, John (m1808) is inferred to be tied to the 1799 townland and, his unknown relation, Julia is inferred to be Julia (b1799).

I hasten to repeat there are no direct connections.  I've searched very thoroughly and am quite certain. What I'm interested in is purely an abstraction, based on "relative" on the 1911 census and the reasonable theory that John (m1808) and Julia (m1820) were related:

If we accept that John (m1808) and Julia (m1820) were blood relations and we accept that their respective grandsons (heads, c1911) were related by blood through them, and had no equal or closer blood relationship along a different line, then to what degree where the heads (c1911) related, based on the child of one being called a "relative" in the others household?

I am sure of all the incidentals.  I know we cannot be sure of the conclusions, but I'm interested in impressions - that is what I am soliciting.  Were John (m1808) and Julia (m1820) more likely to be siblings (ie. I've found my GGG grandfather's parents) than first cousins?

In other words, would someone leave their 3 y.o. child with 3rd cousins?  Or put another way, would someone, with several young children, take in their 3rd cousin's 3 y.o.? When the widower had obvious siblings closer (though crowded living)?  As Julia (m1820) had many children, presumably the widower (c1911) had many first cousins, but more distant (6-8 miles).  Would the heads being 2nd cousins (ie. John and Julia were siblings) be a lot more probable than the heads being 3rd cousins (ie. John and Julia were first cousins)?

Or if that is all too complicated, I'll just put it another way:  what is the most distant blood relationship you have ever been able to work out for a "relative" on the census?  Preferably a child.  And assuming an actual blood relationship, not something by marriage or godparent.  I know Irish records are messed up, so I'll take any European country or offshoot like the US or Canada, as well as Ireland.

Offline Ghostwheel

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #10 on: Friday 20 April 18 21:40 BST (UK) »
Two things I want to clarify:

1.) The widower had lots of relations.  Lots of siblings (some geographically closer and some more distant).  Lots of first cousins (somewhat more distant).  Many possible places to put the child. 
2.) The household couple where the "relation" was staying in 1911 were not godparents to the child.

Offline alpinecottage

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,165
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #11 on: Friday 20 April 18 21:54 BST (UK) »
All censuses are "snapshots" of where people were on one specific night.  The 3 year old may not have been living permanently where you found her.  In 1911, a widower was probably unable to look after a 3 yr old girl and work at the same time, so she was almost certainly going to be looked after elsewhere.  The widower may have paid for her to be looked after by his (maybe) distant relatives.  In England, a common expression for a looked after young child was nurse child.  I think in a small Irish community, everyone would have known everyone else, but probably wouldn't have described each other as third cousin twice removed (for example) - they would just have been "relatives" to each other.  I think it is very unlikely that there were any incestuous relationships involved.
Perrins - Manchester and Staffs
Honan - Manchester and Ireland
Hogg - Manchester 19 cent
Anderson - Newcastle mid 19 cent
Boullen - London then Carlisle then Manchester
Comer - Manchester and Galway

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #12 on: Saturday 21 April 18 00:31 BST (UK) »
I don't think looking at the child who was a "relative" is a way to find out if John and Julia were related. "Relative" is too general a term. Alpine cottage has hit the nail on the head - a census is ONE night in ten years so we can't glean much at all from relationships, where people were living and with whom. For all we know the enumerator may have just written "relative" because it was easier than writing "orphaned grandchild of farmer on adjacent farm being taken care of by family until farmer finishes harvesting" .....  :-\

I know it can be more difficult with Irish records but would you not just trace John and Julia back via the "usual" means to see if you can find that connection further back. Once again I must apologise if you said you have already done this, but I am still finding your scenario difficult to follow.


Offline Sinann

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,813
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #13 on: Saturday 21 April 18 00:48 BST (UK) »
IF I'm following this correctly, John and Julia have been followed back as far as the records go and than forward without finding a definite connection between the two resulting lines so everything hinges on the 3 year old of one line spending one or possibly more nights with someone from the other line.
The closer the child's relationship to the people she is with in the census the closer is the relationship between John and Julia.

There is no way to say how close her relationship is unless they tell you which they don't.

Assuming you have all the descendants of both Julia and John perhaps when the early civil records come online you might find an informant on a death cert that could connect the two lines.

Offline Rosinish

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,239
  • PASSED & PAST
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #14 on: Saturday 21 April 18 01:30 BST (UK) »
I am still finding your scenario difficult to follow.

Thank goodness it's not just me  ::)

In all honesty, this has to be the most complex & confusing post I've ever read & there's been quite a few over the yrs.

As Ruskie mentioned, a Timeline would have been a good idea with names/ages/dates etc.

However, as you're talking of Irish Catholics is it possible the 'Relative' was an illegitimate child, possibly a grandchild as illegitimacy would have been very embarrassing i.e. using a term which wouldn't be frowned upon as the Enumerator (I don't think) would give the '3rd degree' as to what the actual 'relative' relationship was?

I agree with others & doubt your couple were siblings.

Annie
South Uist, Inverness-shire, Scotland:- Bowie, Campbell, Cumming, Currie

Ireland:- Cullen, Flannigan (Derry), Donahoe/Donaghue (variants) (Cork), McCrate (Tipperary), Mellon, Tol(l)and (Donegal & Tyrone)

Newcastle-on-Tyne/Durham (Northumberland):- Harrison, Jude, Kemp, Lunn, Mellon, Robson, Stirling

Kettering, Northampton:- MacKinnon

Canada:- Callaghan, Cumming, MacPhee

"OLD GENEALOGISTS NEVER DIE - THEY JUST LOSE THEIR CENSUS"

Offline brigidmac

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,892
  • Computer incompetent but stiil trying
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #15 on: Saturday 21 April 18 01:42 BST (UK) »
 sinann explained the scenario in a way that made sense to me .

i agree with Rosinish about using the term relative to cover up an illegitimate childs parentage

my grandmother was a boarder in 1901 and became adoptive child in 1911 the couple were in their 70's by then.

i started a tree for the foster family ...and maybe the adoptive mother was actually her grandfathers cousin ......I'm having trouble confirming . but it would be nice to think there was a blood link between the families.
Roberts,Fellman.Macdermid smith jones,Bloch,Irvine,Hallis Stevenson

Offline Ghostwheel

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #16 on: Saturday 21 April 18 02:28 BST (UK) »
Alpine, good point about the census being a snapshot.  I'd really like to see the 1921 census.  I have reason to believe it wasn't a one night thing, as the widower's other young children can't be traced in Ireland on the census and were probably in the US.  i think the girl may have also been sent abroad later - she doesn't seem to have a death record or a marriage record.  The widower died in 1834.  His death was reported by a nephew, not a child.  Maybe, he had none around.

Ruskie, it is impossible to trace back before 1799.  The paper record ceases to exist, in very late 1798.  Assuming John (m1808) was at least 18 when married, he was born 1790 or earlier, at least 8 years before the paper record begins.

Sinann, you've summarized it very well: it is impossible to connect it pre-1800, so I trying to connect it working from the 1911 census.  I'm afraid there isn't much hope on the death records.  I've found both heads already.  I believe one didn't have any siblings in Ireland, at the time, so that makes the chance for any cross-reporting low. 

Rosinish, the child on the census is not illegitimate.  She has a birth record and a mother who died before the 1911 census.  She is living two townlands over (all in the mountains) from her father, who is a widower.

Offline Rosinish

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,239
  • PASSED & PAST
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #17 on: Saturday 21 April 18 03:14 BST (UK) »
Ghostwheel...

Why don't you do as Ruskie suggested...a Timeline with the info. you have as others are more likely to be able to help if you provide them with names/dates/places from info. they have access to which isn't online?

Your post is like a huge secret & I doubt anyone can help you further without you giving info. other than what Ruskie mentioned...

"the man" "the woman" "the child" "woman at marriage" and "woman's townland"

How do you expect anyone to research with the above info.  ???

Researchers need facts to work from & you have given nothing in terms of 'FACTS' for anyone to work on.

Good luck in your quest as I don't think anyone on here can help you with anything as you have provided them with nothing to work with.

Zero input = Zero outcome  ;D

Annie
South Uist, Inverness-shire, Scotland:- Bowie, Campbell, Cumming, Currie

Ireland:- Cullen, Flannigan (Derry), Donahoe/Donaghue (variants) (Cork), McCrate (Tipperary), Mellon, Tol(l)and (Donegal & Tyrone)

Newcastle-on-Tyne/Durham (Northumberland):- Harrison, Jude, Kemp, Lunn, Mellon, Robson, Stirling

Kettering, Northampton:- MacKinnon

Canada:- Callaghan, Cumming, MacPhee

"OLD GENEALOGISTS NEVER DIE - THEY JUST LOSE THEIR CENSUS"