Emily + Minnie Beatrice WARNER

[wilcoxon]

Would you be classed as an ‘inmate’ if you were working at a children’s home in the laundry ?

Probably not, you would be described as a servant.

[gobbitt]

Hi Angie

Emily Warner appears to have married George Albert Frost in 1890 (Q4, Colchester, Essex). His death may have been registered with no middle name very soon afterwards (1890, Q4, Colchester: George Frost, 37).

In 1891 widow Emily Frost (age "30", b. Assington) was in service with the family of farmer Frank Folkard at Copford, near Colchester.

Emily Frost married Arthur Henry Fincham in 1895 (Q4, Lexden, Essex). They were living at Lexden in 1901 and 1911 with William Frost, born c.1894 in Halesworth, Suffolk.

In 1894 the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children had accused Arthur's sister of neglecting his son William. She was excused as a first offender, Colchester Police Court primarily blaming the parents although seemingly unable to prosecute them:

NEGLECTING A CHILD: STRONG WORDS FROM THE BENCH.—Ellen Fincham, a single woman, of Stanway, was charged with having wilfully neglected William Frost, a child in her custody, aged 15 months.—The mother, Emmeline Frost, a single woman, said the father of the child was defendant's brother.—After the bench had heard evidence of the neglect, the chairman said : We are of opinion that in this case the most guilty parties are the father and mother. The law does not enable us to deal with them as we should like, but their conduct has been most brutal and disgraceful. You (the prisoner) have been to some extent the victim of their indifference and neglect, but you took upon yourself the responsibility of looking after this child, and their brutality is no legal excuse for your having neglected it. At the same time we are going to deal leniently with you, and bind you over under the First Offenders Act to come up for judgment when called upon. — The costs were remitted as against the N.S.P.C.C., who prosecuted.
(Essex County Chronicle, 21 Sept. 1894, page 2, column 5; probably based on a fuller report in the East Anglian Daily Times, 19 Sept., p. 5, c. 3)

Emily aged remarkably slowly. Having been 24 in 1881 (employed at Siam Hall, Newton, Suffolk, with farmer Harry Thomas Mudd), she was 40 in 1901, 45 in 1911 and 70 in 1927 (burial at Lexden).

David

[wilcoxon]

Well done 🙂

Would this be the  correct child.
Frost William  . Blything 4a971 
1893 June qtr.
GRO birth index has mmn Warner.

[AngieToton]

Fantastic, how on earth did you manage to find all this out about Emily ?

[gobbitt]

My experience and intuition were helped by Ancestry's family trees, many of which have useful links to checkable sources. They indicate that Emily's son William Frost (b. 1893 Q2, as found by wilcoxon) died in 1948, leaving widow Lilias Violet née Eves (1908-1999) and at least one daughter of Margaret Emily née Bloomfield (c.1896-1936), his previous wife.

Those trees made it easier to see that William's father, Arthur Henry Fincham (c.1871-1932), was a son of Susannah Fincham née Frost (1844-1909) and that one of her brothers was Emily Warner's first husband, George Albert Frost (b. 1852 Q1 Colchester district). So Emily's second husband was also her nephew, which is how she described William's father when testifying during the case against Arthur's sister, as reported by the EADT on Wednesday 19 Sept. 1894 (Findmypast):

CHILD NEGLECT NEAR COLCHESTER.
At the Colchester Police Court on Tuesday, before the Deputy-Mayor (W. Gurney Benham, Esq.), W. Buck, G. Moore, L. J. Watts, and C. H. T. Marshall, Esqrs., Ellen Fincham, a single woman, of Stanway, was charged on remand with having wilfully neglected William Frost, a child aged 15 months, who was in her custody, on the 20th August and other days, in a manner likely to cause injury to its health.— The Bench had adjourned this case, in order that the evidence of the mother of the child might be taken. — The mother, Emmeline Frost, who is a single woman, said that the father of the child was defendant's brother. The defendant had had charge of the child for some time past; in fact she had had charge of the child continuously since it was two months old. Witness also lived at defendant's house for a time, but left nine weeks ago. While staying at the defendant's house witness attended to it. It was very small, but she did not think it had been half starved. About the middle of August witness was passing Fincham's house, when she was called in. Fincham said to her, "If you don't come in and see your child I shall send it to the Union."—Cross-examined by Mr. Asher Prior, who appeared to prosecute on behalf of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, witness said that the father of the child was her nephew, and was much younger than she was. Witness went to see the child twice a week while it was at Crispin's Court. She also visited it once a week afterwards. The child only had condensed milk, which Fincham bought for it; one tin at 4½d. lasted a week. While witness lived with Fincham for five weeks she did not pay anything for her own board, but she always paid 2s. a week for the child. While she was staying with Fincham she noticed that the child was very small about the legs, and took it to Dr. Maybury. The child was not neglected in her presence; it used to have bread and butter and bread and potatoes in gravy besides the condensed milk. She could not account for the child gaining two pounds in weight when it was removed to the Union. —By the Chairman: The defendant on one occasion when witness was passing the house told her that she ought to be ashamed of herself for not sending more money to keep the child.—The Chairmen said: We are of opinion that in this case the most guilty parties are the father and mother. The law does not enable us to deal with them as we should like, but it is the opinion of the Bench that their conduct has been most brutal and disgraceful. You have been to some extent the victim of their indifference and neglect, but you took upon yourself the responsibility of looking after this child, and their brutality is no legal excuse for your having neglected it. At the same time we are going to deal leniently with you, and bind you over under the First Offenders Act to come up for judgment when called upon.—The costs were remitted as against the Society.

The Union was presumably the Lexden and Winstree Union Workhouse at Stanway or the children's home at Stanway Villa (https://www.workhouses.org.uk/Lexden/). The location of Crispin's Court is unclear to me.

David

[AngieToton]

Amazing - are there any marriage certificate's or banns for Emily & any of the husbands ?

[wilcoxon]

 FROST George Albert  Colchester 4a877  
Warner Emily  Colchester 4a877

 Marriages Dec 1890.

[wilcoxon]

Marriages Dec 1895  

 Fincham Arthur Henry  Lexden 4a1052 
 Frost Emily  Lexden 4a1052

Freebmd



 

[AngieToton]

Lovely, thanks for all your help - what a life she led