Author Topic: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children  (Read 1295 times)

Online Jebber

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,755
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
« Reply #9 on: Saturday 23 October 21 16:41 BST (UK) »
Anything is possible. There is a family on a distant branch of my tree, they had several children over a long span of years, they are recorded in the census as all children of the  couple. I took this as the fact (they were too distant to warrant the expense of certificates etc). It is was only when watching an episode of Heir Hunters who happened to be researching the same family, that revealed it was not the case.
 
The last but one child was the illegitimate child of the eldest daughter. The couple  deliberately went on to have another child themselves in an effort to conceal the true  situation. A salutary lesson to take some family relationships in the census with a large pinch of salt.
CHOULES All ,  COKER Harwich Essex & Rochester Kent 
COLE Gt. Oakley, & Lt. Oakley, Essex.
DUNCAN Kent
EVERITT Colchester,  Dovercourt & Harwich Essex
GULLIVER/GULLOFER Fifehead Magdalen Dorset
HORSCROFT Kent.
KING Sturminster Newton, Dorset. MONK Odiham Ham.
SCOTT Wrabness, Essex
WILKINS Stour Provost, Dorset.
WICKHAM All in North Essex.
WICKHAM Medway Towns, Kent from 1880
WICKHAM, Ipswich, Suffolk.

Online Erato

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,866
  • Walker Home for Missionary Children
    • View Profile
Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
« Reply #10 on: Saturday 23 October 21 16:57 BST (UK) »
To elaborate slightly, I have two cases in which young nieces were informally adopted by married but childless aunts.  In one case I think the adoption was an effort to help out a sister who had a lot of children and a neglectful, possibly even criminal, husband who eventually abandoned his family.  In the other case, the adopted niece also came from a large family but I think she went to live with her aunt to provide companionship not because of any problem in her own birth family.
Wiltshire:  Banks, Taylor
Somerset:  Duddridge, Richards, Barnard, Pillinger
Gloucestershire:  Barnard, Marsh, Crossman
Bristol:  Banks, Duddridge, Barnard
Down:  Ennis, McGee
Wicklow:  Chapman, Pepper
Wigtownshire:  Logan, Conning
Wisconsin:  Ennis, Chapman, Logan, Ware
Maine:  Ware, Mitchell, Tarr, Davis

Offline Unfindable

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
« Reply #11 on: Saturday 23 October 21 17:47 BST (UK) »
Anything is possible. There is a family on a distant branch of my tree, they had several children over a long span of years, they are recorded in the census as all children of the  couple. I took this as the fact (they were too distant to warrant the expense of certificates etc). It is was only when watching an episode of Heir Hunters who happened to be researching the same family, that revealed it was not the case.
 
The last but one child was the illegitimate child of the eldest daughter. The couple  deliberately went on to have another child themselves in an effort to conceal the true  situation. A salutary lesson to take some family relationships in the census with a large pinch of salt.

A salutary lesson indeed. Thank you.

I'm wondering if these unexpected DNA results are able to deliver the true story, and if so, how?
A good strong part of them definitely pertain to this family unit, but DNA from the husband's side, let's call it JONES, appears to be missing. So the JONES child I'm investigating only has DNA from the mother's side of the family, from SMITH. But was called JONES, and so were all their offspring.

Is there a scenario where SMITH DNA would be all that is needed?
I mean, fathers do sometimes have relations with their daughters; we might find it scandalous but it does occur... so, in this case, the DNA could be doubling up, if you know what I mean? There are more SMITH DNA matches than expected.

Or is it more likely that Mrs SMITH had an affair with TAYLOR, and I should search for Mr TAYLOR?
Or?..

Baby JONES is clearly part of this JONES-SMITH family, in an extended sense. But is not a JONES.

Where to go from here?
D










Offline Unfindable

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
« Reply #12 on: Saturday 23 October 21 17:47 BST (UK) »
Anything is possible. There is a family on a distant branch of my tree, they had several children over a long span of years, they are recorded in the census as all children of the  couple. I took this as the fact (they were too distant to warrant the expense of certificates etc). It is was only when watching an episode of Heir Hunters who happened to be researching the same family, that revealed it was not the case.
 
The last but one child was the illegitimate child of the eldest daughter. The couple  deliberately went on to have another child themselves in an effort to conceal the true  situation. A salutary lesson to take some family relationships in the census with a large pinch of salt.

A salutary lesson indeed. Thank you.

I'm wondering if these unexpected DNA results are able to deliver the true story, and if so, how?
A good strong part of them definitely pertains to this family unit, but DNA from the husband's side, let's call it JONES, appears to be missing. So the JONES child I'm investigating only has DNA from the mother's side of the family, from SMITH. But was called JONES, and so were all their offspring.

Is there a scenario where SMITH DNA would be all that is needed?
I mean, fathers do sometimes have relations with their daughters; we might find it scandalous but it does occur... so, in this case, the DNA could be doubling up, if you know what I mean? There are more SMITH DNA matches than expected.

Or is it more likely that Mrs JONES nee SMITH had an affair with TAYLOR, and I should search for Mr TAYLOR?
Or?..

Baby JONES is clearly part of this JONES-SMITH family, in an extended sense. But is not a JONES.

Where to go from here?
D

Offline Unfindable

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
« Reply #13 on: Saturday 23 October 21 17:48 BST (UK) »
Anything is possible. There is a family on a distant branch of my tree, they had several children over a long span of years, they are recorded in the census as all children of the  couple. I took this as the fact (they were too distant to warrant the expense of certificates etc). It is was only when watching an episode of Heir Hunters who happened to be researching the same family, that revealed it was not the case.
 
The last but one child was the illegitimate child of the eldest daughter. The couple  deliberately went on to have another child themselves in an effort to conceal the true  situation. A salutary lesson to take some family relationships in the census with a large pinch of salt.

A salutary lesson indeed. Thank you.

I'm wondering if these unexpected DNA results are able to deliver the true story, and if so, how?
A good strong part of them definitely pertains to this family unit, but DNA from the husband's side, let's call it JONES, appears to be missing. So the JONES child I'm investigating only has DNA from the mother's side of the family, from SMITH. But was called JONES, and so were all their offspring.

Is there a scenario where SMITH DNA would be all that is needed?
I mean, fathers do sometimes have relations with their daughters; we might find it scandalous but it does occur... so, in this case, the DNA could be doubling up, if you know what I mean? There are more SMITH DNA matches than expected.

Or is it more likely that Mrs JONES nee SMITH had an affair with TAYLOR, and I should search for Mr TAYLOR?
Or?..

Baby JONES is clearly part of this JONES-SMITH family, in an extended sense. But is not a JONES.

Where to go from here?
D

Offline Unfindable

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
« Reply #14 on: Saturday 23 October 21 17:54 BST (UK) »
To elaborate slightly, I have two cases in which young nieces were informally adopted by married but childless aunts.  In one case I think the adoption was an effort to help out a sister who had a lot of children and a neglectful, possibly even criminal, husband who eventually abandoned his family.  In the other case, the adopted niece also came from a large family but I think she went to live with her aunt to provide companionship not because of any problem in her own birth family.

Erato, thank you
The reasons for both these adoptions are different, but completely understandable and logical.
And the childless aunts had room, had space.

The situation I'm trying to understand is more confusing, because this family unit looks like a regular family unit with children evenly spaced, normal. However the DNA results mark out one child as having no DNA from the husband, although this child carries his name, and the name carried on down.

D


Offline Unfindable

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
« Reply #15 on: Saturday 23 October 21 17:55 BST (UK) »
To elaborate slightly, I have two cases in which young nieces were informally adopted by married but childless aunts.  In one case I think the adoption was an effort to help out a sister who had a lot of children and a neglectful, possibly even criminal, husband who eventually abandoned his family.  In the other case, the adopted niece also came from a large family but I think she went to live with her aunt to provide companionship not because of any problem in her own birth family.

Erato, thank you
The reasons for both these adoptions are different, but completely understandable and logical.
And the childless aunts had room, had space.

The situation I'm trying to understand is more confusing to an observer, because this family unit looks like a regular family unit with children evenly spaced, normal. However the DNA results mark out one child as having no DNA from the husband, although this child carries his name, and the name carried on down.

D

Offline brigidmac

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,280
  • Computer incompetent but stiil trying
    • View Profile
Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
« Reply #16 on: Saturday 23 October 21 18:11 BST (UK) »
Fascinating
Ive heard of a father refusing to acknowledge youngest child in one case he was away at war during time of conception
So that child was adopted

Can you give dna amounts of the matchex

Have i understood correctly that Jones child  Has matches to both maternal SMITH grandparents ie grandmothers maiden name too
But doesnt have matches to either JONES grandparents ?

Is there a cluster of matches to another surname ie TAYLOR that could explain an affair ( by the mother or grandmother)
If there was a double relationship it would explain higher levels of dna matches to SMITH but not necessarily incest. Could be a SMITH cousin or uncle involved.


Roberts,Fellman.Macdermid smith jones,Bloch,Irvine,Hallis Stevenson

Offline Unfindable

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Large family structures, late 19th century, especially the placing of children
« Reply #17 on: Saturday 23 October 21 18:17 BST (UK) »
Fascinating
Ive heard of a father refusing to acknowledge youngest child in one case he was away at war during time of conception
So that child was adopted

Can you give dna amounts of the matchex

Have i understood correctly that Jones child  Has matches to both maternal SMITH grandparents ie grandmothers maiden name too
But doesnt have matches to either JONES grandparents ?

Is there a cluster of matches to another surname ie TAYLOR that could explain an affair ( by the mother or grandmother)
If there was a double relationship it would explain higher levels of dna matches to SMITH but not necessarily incest. Could be a SMITH cousin or uncle involved.

brigidmac
Thanks for offering to help.
I need some insight here! I am not a DNA expert.

Please bear with me, I will fetch the amounts (cm) for you to look at.

D