Author Topic: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child  (Read 2054 times)

Offline sirsimon

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,672
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #18 on: Wednesday 14 November 18 18:16 GMT (UK) »
She is alive, but Joseph is not.

I have ordered some certificates to confirm the parentage of several of the children.


Offline sirsimon

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,672
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #19 on: Monday 19 November 18 20:05 GMT (UK) »
Right, today the marriage certificate arrived and it is the correct marriage, his father is listed as Jonathan

Offline sirsimon

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,672
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #20 on: Tuesday 20 November 18 16:23 GMT (UK) »
However, Arthur, born in 1895 is not Joseph and Alice's son, which makes sense since he is not on the 1901 census. Just needed to be certain

Peter Walton Steele's birth certificate does not give the name of the father, its blank but Alice is the mother.

Peter Walton is most definitely the father, whom is on the 1911 census.

Only question know is why Alice would give all of her illegitimate children the Steele surname, not Walton, which would usually be the case in illegitimate births.

Did she want to hide it from Joseph? He is not on the 1911 census, cannot find him yet.

Or perhaps there was some benefit to keeping the Steele name, money maybe?



Offline jinks

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 875
  • Thomas Pye
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #21 on: Thursday 06 December 18 00:33 GMT (UK) »
Tried to look at the 1911 Census to see if I could help, but it's been removed! Anyway, when a woman gives birth to a child out of wedlock, the Child is given the current surname of the Mother, her legal name is Steele can't access the census to 'read' it
Ashton Lancashire
Eccles Lancashire
Fletcher Lancashire
Harwood Church/Darwen
Jackson Staffordhire/Worcestershire
Jenkinson Cockerham
Marsden Hoghton Lancashire
Mercer Lancashire/Yorkshire
Pye Wyresdale
Singleton Lancashire
Swarbrick  Longridge
Watt Scotland/Lancashire


Online BumbleB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,277
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #22 on: Thursday 06 December 18 07:37 GMT (UK) »
As I understand it, the father has to be present at the registration if the illegitimate child is to take his surname.
Transcriptions and NBI are merely finding aids.  They are NOT a substitute for original record entries.
Remember - "They'll be found when they want to be found" !!!
If you don't ask the question, you won't get an answer.
He/she who never made a mistake, never made anything.
Archbell - anywhere, any date
Kendall - WRY
Milner - WRY
Appleyard - WRY

Offline jinks

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 875
  • Thomas Pye
    • View Profile
Re: Your Thoughts on Census, no sign of husband or first child
« Reply #23 on: Thursday 06 December 18 14:21 GMT (UK) »
True, Not sure when that dates from, I believe it came about because People were stating a Father on the Birth that was later disputed

Ashton Lancashire
Eccles Lancashire
Fletcher Lancashire
Harwood Church/Darwen
Jackson Staffordhire/Worcestershire
Jenkinson Cockerham
Marsden Hoghton Lancashire
Mercer Lancashire/Yorkshire
Pye Wyresdale
Singleton Lancashire
Swarbrick  Longridge
Watt Scotland/Lancashire