Genealogy Chat

Hi OC, Thanks, that's exactly what I had thought that he was most likely the father and that she wouldn't have had much choice in bringing up the children. It had also crossed my mind that he wouldn't have allowed her to keep the children. So thanks for that. It was another relative that cast doubt in my mind because of the baptism record. I have the name of the ship he sailed on and have been trying to find more info, but so far not luck apart from the fact the ship was burnt. Thanks again for your thoughts on the parents it's been a great help and has boosted my confidence in my own ideas on the subject. Will try again for the passenger list. Lou

Well, you could try to fnd the passenger records, to see if she DID go with him. Can I be blunt here - are you saying that these two children were darker skinned than the rest? If so, they may be HIS children and not hers - what a heroine, bringing up her husband's illegitimate children! Still, she may have had no choice, and she may not have been very nice to them either - the census won't tell you that bit. I doubt if they were hers, as the result of an affair. No Victorian man would have stood for that. He would have divorced her and the children would have finished up in an orphanage - at best. He certainly wouldnt have allowed her to bring the children back to England, to make a public fool of him! OC

Hi All, Thanks for replying and for your thoughts and ideas. It's not that she was in England in all census that's bothering me. I have managed to track the family back to 1763 with baptism and marriage records. It's the fact that I'm not sure who is the natural parent of the children. I did think that he had a fling abroard and brought the children back to England and put his wife's name as the mother and she would have had to bring them up as hers. But it's only a thought. I found my gt grandfather on one census and where it says 'where born' it said 'Sea' which could mean at sea or overseas. He's the child that was 10months old. Which could mean that she was overseas with her hubby and had both children to him. Which would be strange as non of the other children had the same features and colouring as these two. But if she had an affair would her husband still accept another mans child as his own in those days? Hope all this makes sence. Lou

Well, I have the opposite - one couple who were out of the country for 3 census in a row. But the next census shows they had children born in England in between censuses, so they obviously came and went. Your couple probably did the same. Census is just a 10 year snapshot. Jay

I rather agree with OC - all you know is Mum was back in England some months later. It is worth remembering that the old timers did funny things like return to UK for the cool. (Healing when it is hot and humid is slow to be fair to them). 'East Indies' covers a pretty big area with different travel times for different places. Clive

So is it the fact that she was shown in UK in both 1851 and 1861 that is bothering you? I have been in England for all census taken since I was alive......quite 'hiding' the fact that I spent several years overseas in first Cyprus and in Germany. My first child was born abroad too , - between census. Don't dismiss your couple as the correct parents, just yet. Gwyn

Hi OC, Yes in 1851 Both were in England But in 1861 she is here while hubby is not, with 'both suspect children' one of which was aged 10 months. It is only these 2 children that are a mystery as they definately from another country. And as one of them is my direct ancestor I'm trying to find out as much as I can. Lou

Looby But can you find any evidence of his wife NOT being overseas? I suppose he could have lied to the Vicar - but how you will ever prove that, I don't know. OC

Hi all, I have a christening record dated 1857 in the East Indies, with the names of my ancestors as parents along with their address when overseas, yet I can't find any evidence of them both being overseas. He was definately there because of work. Could he have adopted this child plus another one / or had a fling and put wife's name on the baptism without her being present? Any ideas anyone? Thanks Lou