Author Topic: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?  (Read 1367 times)

Offline chris_49

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,338
  • Unknown Father - swiving then vanishing since 1750
    • View Profile
so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« on: Wednesday 15 May 24 19:38 BST (UK) »
I've long tried to find the father of my illegitimate grandmother Sarah Hancox 1881-1941. i hoped that an Ancestry DNA test would give some answers, but so far the only match has been to Samuel Manton 1860-1913 who married her mother Harriet Lynes Hancox 1863-1929 in 1885 when she was pregnant again.

Yet in every census she is described as Sarah Hancox, stepdaughter. When she married my grandfather she gave her father as H Hancox no occupation, which can only refer to her mother - the usual concealment of the shame of illegitimacy. My mother only found the truth after her own mother died.

At first I dismised this connection to other Mantons - it was from a tree where there was a 75-year-old father, and on a side branch a 16-year-old father, and a connection to the aristocracy (a comedown for an Ag Lab!) All the hallmarks of badly researched trees. And you can be related in other, unknown ways in mid-Warwickshire (the Hancoxes and Mantons were from Kenilworth).

But since then I've found a connection to Samuel's mother Hannah Gaydon, by a relative I know and trust, and a better Manton match where an intervening relative has been found. I contacted my ThruLines match and although she didn't know, the match is on her mother's side (fits) and almost all her other lines hail from the Northampton area.

So is Samuel my great-grandfather after all? Would he get a girl pregnant, not marry her, but then marry her after she got pregnant again? And then not acknowledge her? My mother married her Manton first cousin perhaps thinking it was safe since he was only a half-cousin - was she wrong? (He was killed at El Alamein shortly after the wedding).

One possibility is that one of George's four elder brothers was the father. Three of them were married at the time so in no position to marry Harriet. The intriguing one is George born 1850 who is in Alvechurch in 1881 described as married, but alone. I can find no marriage for him - the Wiltshire one is born Coventry, and the Stretton-on-Dunsmore one is younger and stays there. Meanwhile Harriet Hancox is "servant out of place" 9 months pregnant and staying with a neighbour in Kenilworth - perhaps a mooted marriage that never happened>

In any case George then disappears. He may have died in London in 1898 but he's not on the 1891 census. He might be the George who emigrated to Canada with a wife Sarah, but the only marriage I can find that fits is in Ampthill in late 1881 - the 1880 one in Highworth is the Coventry George marrying Zelpha Ponting.

Sorry (again) that this is long?What do you think. Chris

 
Skelcey (Skelsey Skelcy Skeley Shelsey Kelcy Skelcher) - Warks, Yorks, Lancs <br />Hancox - Warks<br />Green - Warks<br />Draper - Warks<br />Lynes - Warks<br />Hudson - Warks<br />Morris - Denbs Mont Salop <br />Davies - Cheshire, North Wales<br />Fellowes - Cheshire, Denbighshire<br />Owens - Cheshire/North Wales<br />Hicks - Cornwall<br />Lloyd and Jones (Mont)<br />Rhys/Rees (Mont)

Offline Ashtone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,638
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« Reply #1 on: Wednesday 15 May 24 19:59 BST (UK) »
Looks like there was another Hancox daughter baptised on 12 May 1881. Same day as Sarah's baptism.

Alice, daughter of Harriett Hancox of Kenilworth.

Next to both baptism entries is the notation Private. (Possibly baptised privately at the mother's home?)

Plus the notation "Rec'd 10 July" for Alice. And "Received June 12/81" for Sarah.

ADDED -

There's a 1 Jan 1883 burial in Kenilworth for an Alice Hancox. Age 1 year and 7 months.

Offline Ashtone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,638
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday 15 May 24 20:17 BST (UK) »
Yet in every census she is described as Sarah Hancox, stepdaughter.

Every census? I'm only seeing her (as step-daughter) with the family in the 1891 census. Sarah appears to be somewhere else in 1901.


Offline coombs

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,506
  • Research the dead....forget the living.
    • View Profile
Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday 15 May 24 21:40 BST (UK) »
So you first found a likely DNA match to Samuel Manton then? And this is the same man who married your great grandmother Harriet Hancox, after your grandmother was born?

Who is George, was he Samuel Manton's brother? Or do you mean Samuel himself? Was George his middle name?
Researching:

LONDON, Coombs, Roberts, Auber, Helsdon, Fradine, Morin, Goodacre
DORSET Coombs, Munday
NORFOLK Helsdon, Riches, Harbord, Budery
KENT Roberts, Goodacre
SUSSEX Walder, Boniface, Dinnage, Standen, Lee, Botten, Wickham, Jupp
SUFFOLK Titshall, Frost, Fairweather, Mayhew, Archer, Eade, Scarfe
DURHAM Stewart, Musgrave, Wilson, Forster
SCOTLAND Stewart in Selkirk
USA Musgrave, Saix
ESSEX Cornwell, Stock, Quilter, Lawrence, Whale, Clift
OXON Edgington, Smith, Inkpen, Snell, Batten, Brain


Offline Ashtone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,638
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday 15 May 24 21:47 BST (UK) »
1881 census - Looks like Samuel Manton is with the Best family in Sambourn, Alcester, Warwickshire.

Chris - Do you have Sarah's 1881 birth cert? If not, you should get it (along with Alice's birth cert). There may be a clue on the birth certs. I'm wondering if Sarah and Alice were twins.

Also, you should get Alice's 1882 death cert. It may provide a clue, as well.

Online mckha489

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 9,717
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« Reply #5 on: Wednesday 15 May 24 22:26 BST (UK) »
I'm wondering if Sarah and Alice were twins.


Same reg no so I would say yes, they were twins.

Offline chris_49

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,338
  • Unknown Father - swiving then vanishing since 1750
    • View Profile
Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« Reply #6 on: Thursday 16 May 24 13:56 BST (UK) »
Thanks very much to everybody who helped, especially those who found Sarah's twin Alice - I had no idea. I had the baptism but, wouldn't you know it, it was the last one on the page, and I never thought to click on to find Alice. In those days (~20 years ago) I didn't know the sighnificance of private baptisms, nor that it was unusual (at least in my family) to baptise as early as 9 days. Either because twins had a poor survival rate then, or to hide the bastardy shame, or both.

Yes I have Sarah's birth certificate, and not just any old cert but the one my mother found in her own mother's effects after her death, including that marriage certificate, both of which proved she was not a Manton but an illegitimate Hancox, which was quite a shock to her.

Sorry, Sarah was a servant, a cook (her known profession) in Lillington in 1901, still a Hancox, just a short walk from her future husband George Skelcey in Cubbington - there's a romantic story about this which I'll leave for now.

Now onto the DNA match theories. If Sarah was not Samuel's daughter - and WHY would he not acknowledge her? - the only other people who could contribute both Manton and Gaydon genes to Sarah were his surviving elder brothers. John 1841 had no children of his own, so perhaps he was infertile (his wife Harriet had a daughter from before the marriage). Thomas 1844 was in Kenilworth in 1881 but fathered a daughter that very same year by his wife - seems a bit cheeky. Henry 1846 and Stephen 1852 are not found after 1861 though no deaths found - Henry seems not to be the younger one found in the Stratford area on censuses.

So my attention was focused on George Manton 1850 who at least was not ridiculously older than Harriet. He is at home until 1871 but in 1881 is a Cowman in Alvechurch, Worcs, married but alone. As an alibi this is even better than Samuel's in Sambourn but an errant father-to-be can travel a long way in 9 months.

But after that he disappears. Since I last posted I have found the Coventry George Manton married to Zelpha/Zephtha in Wiltshire, so I have no marriage for him anywhere nearby, and certaiunly none to a Sarah (per those Canadian immigrants before late 1881. Thank you for your facts - I'd like some opinions.
Skelcey (Skelsey Skelcy Skeley Shelsey Kelcy Skelcher) - Warks, Yorks, Lancs <br />Hancox - Warks<br />Green - Warks<br />Draper - Warks<br />Lynes - Warks<br />Hudson - Warks<br />Morris - Denbs Mont Salop <br />Davies - Cheshire, North Wales<br />Fellowes - Cheshire, Denbighshire<br />Owens - Cheshire/North Wales<br />Hicks - Cornwall<br />Lloyd and Jones (Mont)<br />Rhys/Rees (Mont)

Offline Ashtone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,638
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« Reply #7 on: Thursday 16 May 24 14:07 BST (UK) »
Yes I have Sarah's birth certificate...

Are you willing to share the details on the birth cert? Addresses and informant are very helpful.

As Sarah is described as "step-daughter" on the 1891 census then it suggests she's not Samuel's daughter. Also, she didn't give a father's name on her marriage record. If Samuel was really her father why wouldn't she mention this when she married? It suggests she was not aware who her father was.

Personally, I'm not convinced that Samuel was the father of Sarah and twin Alice.

Offline chris_49

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,338
  • Unknown Father - swiving then vanishing since 1750
    • View Profile
Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« Reply #8 on: Thursday 16 May 24 15:32 BST (UK) »
Yes I have Sarah's birth certificate...

Are you willing to share the details on the birth cert? Addresses and informant are very helpful.

As Sarah is described as "step-daughter" on the 1891 census then it suggests she's not Samuel's daughter. Also, she didn't give a father's name on her marriage record. If Samuel was really her father why wouldn't she mention this when she married? It suggests she was not aware who her father was.

Personally, I'm not convinced that Samuel was the father of Sarah and twin Alice.

I'll try to dig out that cert. What I remember is that nothing on it was remarkable - father space blank. It was on Clinton Lane, aka Castle Hill,  in Kenilworth. I agree that Samuel was an unlikely father, and she herself was unaware, but those Manton and Gaydon DNA matches are pretty specific.
 
Skelcey (Skelsey Skelcy Skeley Shelsey Kelcy Skelcher) - Warks, Yorks, Lancs <br />Hancox - Warks<br />Green - Warks<br />Draper - Warks<br />Lynes - Warks<br />Hudson - Warks<br />Morris - Denbs Mont Salop <br />Davies - Cheshire, North Wales<br />Fellowes - Cheshire, Denbighshire<br />Owens - Cheshire/North Wales<br />Hicks - Cornwall<br />Lloyd and Jones (Mont)<br />Rhys/Rees (Mont)