Author Topic: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child  (Read 1021 times)

Offline sirsimon

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,650
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« on: Tuesday 13 November 18 20:50 GMT (UK) »
Hi guys,

Hope you are all well.

I would appreciate any thoughts on the information from this 1911 census entry.

A relative of mine, Joseph Steele was born in 1863 to Jonathan Steele and Elizabeth Kennedy. He was born in Carlisle, Cumberland, but went to Lancashire and married a Alice Thompson around 1891 and had children, Jonathan 1892, Bessie Alice 1893 and Ethel 1899. Jonathan was born in Cumberland, but the others were born in Lancashire.

Now on this census, it states Alice is married and is living with a Peter Walton. Interestingly Bessie and Alice are present, but Joseph is not, nor is Jonathan. It is possible he died, but I cannot find any corresponding death record.

Alice is also living with what are listed as illegitimate children, possibly born to Peter. My question is, what happened to Joseph and Jonathan and what are your thoughts on Alice having children with another man, but giving them all the name Steele, not Walton?

my thanks

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Mabel Bagshawe

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,996
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 13 November 18 21:15 GMT (UK) »
on the 1911 census there's a Jonathan Steele b c1892 in "Carligh, Cumberland" [as transcribed by Ancestry]. He's an able seaman based in Devonport.


RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Mabel Bagshawe

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,996
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 13 November 18 21:24 GMT (UK) »
This chap appears to have DOB 29 Sep 1891 and often goes by the name John

Offline Milliepede

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,319
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 13 November 18 21:32 GMT (UK) »
Quote
Now on this census, it states Alice is married and is living with a Peter Walton.

Living with in what sense?  Is she down as his wife or a lodger or ?

Who are the illegitimate children - are there birth registrations for them. 
Hinchliffe Huddersfield Wiltshire

Offline Mabel Bagshawe

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,996
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile

Offline sirsimon

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,650
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday 13 November 18 21:48 GMT (UK) »
Peter is listed as married, as is Alice. Peter is listed as 'In Charge'

The illegitimate children are;

Alice Steele 1904 Chorlton
Leonard Steele 1908 Chorlton
Edith Steele 1909 Chorlton
Ivy Walton Steele 1910 Chorlton

Apologies for not adding them earlier

Offline roopat

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 998
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #6 on: Tuesday 13 November 18 22:27 GMT (UK) »
Alice is listed as housekeeper. Why do you think the illegitimate children are Mr Walton's?
King, Richardson, Hathaway, Sweeney, Young - Chelsea, London
Richardson - Rayne Essex
Steward, Hindry, Hewitt - Norfolk, North Walsham area

Offline sirsimon

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,650
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #7 on: Tuesday 13 November 18 22:43 GMT (UK) »
I assume its because at least one of the children has Walton in their name and the children are listed as illegitimate. I could be wrong though

Offline Milliepede

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,319
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #8 on: Wednesday 14 November 18 11:07 GMT (UK) »
Have you investigated this Mr Walton, does he appear on earlier census with a wife of his own and/or children? 

If one of the children does have Walton as a middle name then yes it's hard not to assume he was the father of that one at least  :-\ 

Have you birth certificates for any of these children?  If Mr Walton completed the census I don't know why he wouldn't pass them all off as a "normal" family ie with Alice as his wife and the children as "theirs"
Hinchliffe Huddersfield Wiltshire