Genealogy Chat

I have a puzzle in my tree. In 1891 my 3xgreat grandparents Ursula and Edward Willday were living with a 2 year old girl named Clara Willday, who was described as a "Visitor". They were in their late forties by then and had several grown up daughters.

I had thought that Clara could have been an illegitimate granddaughter, but she was born in 1889/1890 and no Clara Willday can be found on the birth index. When Clara married, she gave her name as Clara Florence Willday.

One idea I had was that she was no blood relative at all, but - had she been an illegitimate grandchild - does anyone know if the family could have been punished for not registering her birth?

Kate

On her marriage cert, who did she state as her father? Or was that left blank?

Athena

That is a good point, Athena. I don't have the certificate yet but the name in the marriage index is Clara F Willday. I uncovered the "Florence" bit by finding her grave the other day.

I think I will have to get the certificate - it could be interesting. Clara was named as a witness on the marriage of her "sister's" daughter (my great-grandma) in 1915, but just signed her name "Clara Willday".

Kate, were there any indicators on the grave of Clara for her parents etc ?
Joan

It might be worth contacting the local Register Office to where she is said to be born. Some registration details never made it to the GRO.

However if this took place in London, be warned, some offices will not issue certificates for family history purposes.

Chris

Yes, I think that cert is the first step forward really.

Had a look at the family on the 1901 census and they are listed as follows:

Edward, H, 60 b Worcs
[Mirala?], W, 60
Edith, dau, single, 26 b Cheshire
Clara, dau, single, 11, b Melling Lancs

It occurred to me that Clara may possibly have been an illegitimate child of Edith's perhaps. She would only have been about 15yrs old when she had Clara and it's possible that Edward and his wife may have tried to pass her off as their own to save all the embarrassment. If that did happen, then Clara may well have grown up believing Edith to be her sister and would have put Edward down as her father on her marriage cert.

If Edward and Ursula/Mirala WERE her real parents then it means the mother was touching 50 at the time she gave birth. How realistic is that I wonder?

Actually, looking further back at the 1881 census, I can see that there were quite a few daughters in this family so either of them may have produced Clara illegitimately.

Anyway, yes, by law they had to register any birth, illegitimate or not. Whether everyone did so, I don't know. Maybe some of them moved districts and hoped they wouldn't get caught out!

Regards, Athena

To follow on from Athena and non registration.

From 1875 parents became legally obliged to register the birth of a child within six weeks and were fined if they were found out.

If a parent didn't register within the six weeks they might register the child but lie about the date of birth so as not to be fined.

They could also, of course, just not do it and take their chances.

Chris

Just to add to the slight feeling of gloom re non-registration I read somewhere fairly recently (can't remember book or author sorry) that even after compulsory registration came into force it was likely that if one child not registered then none of the children in the family were likely to be registered. That really cheered me up so I thought I'd pass it on.

Jill

There were no mentions of the parents on the gravestone, Joan. I was hoping there might have been an indication that Clara and the husband had children and I have checked the births up to the mid-1920s so far with no joy.

About what Jill was saying, the curious thing is that the other daughters of Edward and Ursula (it got translated as Mirala in 1901 but I'm pretty sure it reads Ursula) were all registered at birth. I know the daughter Edith Eleanor was never married (I saw her grave the other day, too - it just said "Edith, daughter of Edward and Ursula").

And referring to what Chris says, the dodgy thing is that the said Edward was no stranger to breaking the law. He was in prison twice before the time of Clara's birth for larceny and stealing chickens so I wouldn't be surprised if he thought nothing of "forgetting" the registration.

Curiously, assuming a date of birth of 1889 for Clara, none of her six "sisters" were married at the time, although three did marry soon after (one in 1890, one in 1891 and one in 1892) so I suppose it is not impossible that one of these was the mother.