Genealogy Chat

Hello Sylvia and Heather, Thanks for your responses. I had seen that Laura Chapman birth entry and thought of the possibility of it being my Laurie May Chapman. The only thing that has stopped me from ordering the birth certificate is the fact that that birth year of 1883 is off when you compare it to the census years of 1891 and 1901 when she was 9 and 19 respectively. If she was born in the Sept. Qtr. of 1891 that means by Sept. 1891, in my estimation, she would have been only 7 years old. I've been so tempted to order the certificate, but the above calculations and not wanting to waste the money on a certificate that isn't correct keeps putting off. However, my curiosity might get the better of me and I might just go ahead and order it. I guess the yet to be released 1911 census might answer some more questions. Incidentally, when will the 1911 be released? Will it be 2011 or much sooner? Again, I really appreciate your input and for taking the time to take a look for Laurie May in the birth entries. Thanks!! Jill

Its a shame you didnt find the girls marriage certs as Ive found with my lot that when a child is 'adopted' into the step family they will revert to their birth name at official events, like marriage or joining the army. Of course if the girls have no knowledge of their dad anyway the cert would be blank or they will lie and add the step dads name.

nudge for Gillian

Hi Gillian, have you seen this birth registration? No middle name, but born in Marylebone. Surname First name(s) District Vol Page -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Births Sep 1883 (>99%) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapman Laura Marylebone 1a 547

Thanks everyone for replying and helping me out with this one. I had seen the 1881 Census where the Clarice is listed as the daughter of Jane Chapman the Grandmother which I dismissed as being a porkie pie! I have the birth certificate for Clarice M. Chapman and she was born in Queen Charlotte's hospital which was supposedly a place for unwed mothers to give birth. (No father was stated on the certificate.) Then Laurie May Chapman was born somewhere in Marylebone, but try as I might, I cannot find a birth for her listed which is really frustrating! It seems that my Gt. Grandmother went away to London to have her children then returned to Leatherhead afterwards. I have also not been able to locate marriages for the two girls to maybe get more information. My Grandmother, Frederica Brooke (see in the 1901 Census), didn't speak much about her two step-sisters only her biological sister and so there isn't much info to go on. It's almost like the girls didn't exist, but they did! I guess all I can think of is that, back then, being an unwed mother was deemed scandalous and they obviously didn't want to admit to this when it came to census time. Thank you, too, for confirming about the adoption process and when it really became a formality. I appreciate all your input with this. Thanks very much! Jill

'Official' or formal adoption procedures did not exist until 1927. Liz

I guess 1881 may add some water to that theory above - Name: Clarice M. Chapman Age: 1 Estimated birth year: abt 1880 Relation: Daughter Mother's name: Jane Gender: Female Where born: London Marylebone, Middlesex, England Civil parish: Leatherhead County/Island: Surrey Country: England Street address: Church Street Private House Registration district: Epsom Sub-registration district: Leatherhead ED, institution, or vessel: 1 Neighbors: View others on page Household Members: Name Age Clarice M. Chapman 1 Jane Chapman 52 Mary Chapman 19 Clarice is recorded as daughter of Jane...who is 52 ( unlikely!)

I can't answer your question as to why the girls were listed as 'visitors' in 1891, unless they had been spending most of their time with their grandmother. However, there need not have been a formal adoption process ........ it seems that this was not a common procedure. The girls would just take their stepfather's name ....... ............ what name were they married under? Although this does not mean anything either!! You didn't then, and still don't now I believe, have to provide evidence of the legality of the name(s) you are using ............... this being one of the problems we have in this generation in trying to trace our ancestors!

I have a question regarding whether there was any official adoption of children back in the late 1800's. My Great Grandmother, Mary Margaret Chapman, had two daughters in 1880 and 1882 (father's of both girls unknown) who naturally took on the Chapman family name. In 1891, (RG12/604, Pages 43 and 44) my Gt. Grandmother and her husband Frederic Brooke ( now married in 1889) were listed on the census in Wimbledon with the two daughters Clarice M. and Laurie May noted as being 'visitors' still with the Chapman name, but in 1901 (RG13/658, Page 26) the girls both are listed as 'daughters' bearing the Brooke family name. I was wondering if anyone can tell me if there was an adoption process back then and, if so, are there any records available to verify this. If this wasn't the case, and despite the fact that Clarice and Laurie were her children, why would my Gt. Grandmother list the girls as being merely 'visitors' and not put them down on the census as being her daughters in 1891. Any feedback on this would be good to hear. Thanks for any help you can offer on this. Jill