Genealogy Chat

Well, speaking from my own experience, the day I was born I was baptised (a Catholic) because I was not expected to live. By the time I was six months old (and with my adoptive parents) I was given a blessing in church because I'd already been baptised so couldn't have the baptism done again, but my parents wanted a christening type of ceremony for the family to attend. Perhaps it was thought that there wouldn't be time for a proper baptism - I'm not sure how it works in the Mormon church.

I have a child born in May 1852. His mother was a Mormon (his father was not) I have found a record of a blessing on IGI dated June 1852. Does anyone know why this blessing would have happened and why blessed and not baptised? The child died . Thanks

Thank you Kate. I can not confirm wether this blessing was done before or after his death. I know Mormons baptise the dead but have not heard of a blessing for the dead.

Perhaps his father had already had him baptised C of E, or some other denomination? Or refused to allow him to be baptised a Mormon? OC

I can't believe I am going to say this, lol, but have you looked on the IGI for SUBMITTED records? These often turn out to be Sealings for the Dead - follow the source reference through, to find out. As far as I know, though, you cannot access the actual records of these Sealings - they are strictly private. OC

Hi its a tricky one. There first 3 children were baptised C of E. Before her fourth and last child was born she converted to Mormon and no baptism records can be found. This child her fifth who had the blessing died. Her fourth child also died but there is no blessing for her?

Hi OC It is where I found the record, I followed it through as you say and its hold records for Register of children blessed and Members. I dont think that he would be a member at only 1 month old, so it has to be the Register of Children Blessed. 8 Months later after this blessing the mother left England alone and went to Utah. (leaving her two surviving children with her husband!) Many years later there is a Sealing for these three deceased children.

Julie Just as an aside - she would not, of course, been allowed to take the children with her, even if she had wanted to - children belonged to their fathers then, and mothers had no rights over their children whatsoever. OC

Thanks OC. I did not know that! I have written history that her husband did not share her enthusiam for this religion. It may be that he 'kicked' her out or of course she left to follow her faith. She also 'remarried' two years later in St Louis!!! Julie

That is quite right, OC. I was lucky enough to do Social and Economic History at GCSE and back then I found it amazing to find out that if a woman wanted to leave her husband she would be lucky to get the clothes she was wearing. By leaving, she would forfeit all right to her children. I wonder if that is what happened with my 3xgreat grandma - she disappeared off the face of official records, it seems, at some point between her last son's birth in 1872 and her husband's remarriage in 1873. I often wonder where she went, and whether that year was a sufficient length of time for her husband to presume her dead. It is a mystery I have yet to solve and there are many possibilities. I wondered at her leaving this brood of children - the eldest would have been 13 - but I suppose if she chose to walk out, she would have had to.

Thats interesting Kate. This husband in following records always stated he was married. Not remarriage record can be found for him. I wonder if she just 'left' and he knew nothing of her whereabouts? I have recently made contact with a decendant of one of the children she left behind and their family history indicated that she had died! What a surprise to them it was when I told them of her travel to Utah and the new 'extended' family that they never knew existed. Julie

Kate Even worse - those laws continued into certainly the 1950s! A divorced woman was most unlikely to get custody of her children, even if she was an innocent party. Often custody of the children would be granted to her FATHER, or other male relative. But if she was the guilty party in the divorce - then not a chance. She would never see her children again. The children were usually told that their mother had died. OC

OC Quote 'The children were usually told that their mother had died.' Exactly what I have been told by the decendant of one of the children she left in England!! Julie

Didn't that also happen with the late Princess of Wales' mother? She divorced the then Earl Spencer and I think was known as 'the bolter' for leaving her husband and children. As you say, particularly if the woman was divorcing or being divorced because she had had an affair, she wouldn't stand a chance of getting custody of the children. I suppose, regarding my 3xgreat grandma, it is possible in theory that perhaps the loss of her last baby might have caused some sort of breakdown or depression. Maybe she just left the house and somehow committed suicide and was never found. As my dad suggested, they didn't live far from Liverpool - maybe she got on a boat and emigrated. I can't find her in the death records so I should get her husband's second wedding certificate to find out his marital status. (Assuming he didn't lie.) The other alternative - a slightly macabre one - is that he maybe had a hand in her disappearance and no one ever found out, but I'm going to try all other possibilities first.

Ah well, Julie, I suppose it stopped all that nuisance bed-wetting and stopped the child continually asking to see its evil mother. There was a divorce in my family in the 1930s - a terrible scandal, which split the family in half. Most unusually, the father did not contest custody of the children and the mother was allowed to have them live with her, although their father had lawful custody. A descendant of this family tells me the reason father did not want the girls was A. because they were GIRLS - and B - because he did not believe they were his children. The girls had very little to do with their father, (his choice) and when he died, were told in no uncertain terms to stay away from the funeral, as they would be an unwelcome reminder of what the 'poor man' had had to suffer from his first wife. If anyone is still wondering why women's lib happened..... OC

Hi Kate In my research I have found many sources of emigrates would like to give me her name and I will see I can find her? Julie

Oh, thanks, Julie. I had a look on the 1881 US census but nothing showed up. Her maiden name was Hannah Holcroft b. 1840 in Lydiate, Lancashire, but her married name was Halsall, husband's name James. I tried looking for her just by name, year and place of birth on the British census, but again I couldn't find a match.

Hi Kate Just tried all combinations on my resourses but no luck! Have you googled her by using the speach marks ''. Many show up!

I often wonder when all trace is lost, if foul play was afoot... but then I watch too many forensic & detective programmes

That's true, Liz. The murderer would hardly be likely to present himself at the registry office the next day and report the death of X, aged 45, cause of death - brutal injuries etc. Makes you wonder about all those missing people you just can't trace on a census - they must have ended up somewhere, but where and whether the decision was theirs or someone else's will be a mystery.