Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Family TreesΒ  permalink

Interesting skeletons Anyone want to share?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Jowin1 (U1940449) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005

  Reading a recent thread, has brought out some interesting skeletons. Some have caused strife, others are just interesting. I have tracked two bigamists in my family tree on two seperate branches, both late 19th century. Shotgun weddings, illegitimacy and having children by someone other than your husband but giving him the family name. Workhouse inmates, causing affray. Its interesting that they where allowed to be so liberal with their ages on formal documents, though I appreciate that whilst on some ocassions this was purposely done to deceive, in the main I suspect they neither knew nor cared what ther ages were. Anyone want to share their skeletons or thoughts on why these mini, though prisonable offences wre so prolific?

  Link to this forum: Interesting skeletons Anyone want to share?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Grumpysusanna (U2291751) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005

  Is it true that putting false information on a birth certificate is a prisonable offence? I have recently found that information on my birth certificate is false. It would appear my parents have created a completely false past in order to cover up the fact they had both been married before and at the time of my birth mmy father was still married to his first wife. My mother used my fathers surname although she was not married to him. It was supposidly a stigma 50 year ago to have children out of wedlock. I have always been led to believe they had been married 7 years longer than they have. This revelation has caused such grief within the family that it has torn it apart. I do not have a problem with 'the skeleton' but they cannot accept this has happened and appear to still be living 'in the past'. Has anyone any suggestions about this so I can carry on my family tree without the feeling of guilt?
  

  Link to this forum: Interesting skeletons Anyone want to share?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Jowin1 (U1940449) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005

  I think bigamy is the only prisonable offence and still is of course, though wives in 19th century who had outlived their usefulness or been unfaithful were forgotten I think and the husbands just married again and did not hold the evil connotations of bigamy in the late 20th century.

  Link to this forum: Interesting skeletons Anyone want to share?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by dawns63 (U2026872) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005

  I am trying to solve a similar problem. My father in law thought his parents were married but they never were. His mother used the name of his fathers ex-wife. I have been searching for any details on the ex-wife and cannot find anything not even a birth registration. Now we are wondering was the women we thought was his mother really his mother? Nobody seems to have questioned there parents in the 1950s they just went along with what thay thought was right.

  Link to this forum: Interesting skeletons Anyone want to share?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Adam Girdwood (U1688149) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005

  My grandmother was born illegitimate. Both of her Parents registered the birth so she has both parents' names down. My Great Grandparents did marry when she was 18 months old.
  
  In Scotland they used to write the word 'Illegitimate' in the name and surname column of the birth certificate. My grandmother did not see her birth certificate until she wanted to go on holiday abroad and needed the certificate to get a passport. My great grandmother eventually brought the certificate down and apologised for the fact that she had never got round to correcting the certificate by having their marriage noted on the certificate.
  
  It caused a great deal of upset, but it eventually passed.

  Link to this forum: Interesting skeletons Anyone want to share?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Adam Girdwood (U1688149) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005

  I think that the incidence of bigamy that people have found reflects the fact that in the past it was so expensive and difficult to divorce. You could only divorce if you could prove you were the innocent party to a matrimonial offence such as adultery, desertion and unreasonable behaviour. In addition when you did have the grounds you needed not only to have a Solicitor, but a Barrister/Advocate to argue the divorce case in an open trial.

  Link to this forum: Interesting skeletons Anyone want to share?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by dawns63 (U2026872) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005

  Can a birth certificate be changed at a later date? I was under the impression once it had been registered that was that. When you go to register a birth you are asked to check all details have been entered correctly before the certificate is filled in.

  Link to this forum: Interesting skeletons Anyone want to share?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Adam Girdwood (U1688149) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005

  Yes. If a child is born illegitimate the birh certificate can be altered so that it will be issued as if the parents were married. In addition it is possible to alter a certificate to add/remove the father's name to take account of paternity tests. Another case where the certificate can be changed is where a child is conceived by artificial insemmination after the father's death.
  
  Finally it is possible to have a change of sex recorded now.

  Link to this forum: Interesting skeletons Anyone want to share?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by TwoBitTwoBit (U1573417) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005

  Skeletons? How about these:
  
  My great grandmother knocked 10 years off her age on her marriage certificate. She also had at least four children, including my grandfather, prior to her marriage, two of whom died in infancy. She died suddenly shortly after her marriage.
  
  My gr gr grandmother describes herself as a 'widow' in 1871, which is interesting considering that my gr gr grandfather (her husband) has come back to life in 1881, 1891 and 1901. The best guess is that they were fiddling the poor law - they were receiving out door relief at the time and may have been looked on more favourably if the main breadwinner had 'died'.
  
  My gr grandfather was 5ft tall, a typical english pale complexion and wife who was twenty years younger than him. My grandfather (their son) was 6ft 1 tall and had a black haired/tanned Meditteranean complexion. A Spanish gentleman used to live on the same street as them.
  
  My paternal gr gr grandparents married in the neighbouring parish for obscure reasons - I think it is because my gr gr grandmother was pregnant with their first child at the time.
  
  Family legend has it that when my gr grandfather returned from the army to marry my gr grandmother in 1919 he refused to go back and hid in the loft when the authorities showed up.
  
  My gr gr grandfather's sisters both married the same man - the elder sister first. She died and less than a year later he married the younger sister.

  Link to this forum: Interesting skeletons Anyone want to share?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by jkavanagh (U1753575) on Monday, 24th October 2005

  It may have been a stigma, but was a fairly frequent occurence for children to be born out of wedlock. The only difference with today is that single mothers get help, and the man disappears, whereas then they didn't.
  
  A sorry sign of the times.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Interesting skeletons Anyone want to share?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by jc (U1902680) on Monday, 24th October 2005

  I think we have all found our fair share of unmarried mothers, disappearing fathers etc it is sad but a fact of life. I try not to dwell on the 'recent' history so as not to upset the family but note down the facts so as not to mislead any future budding genealogist in the family.
  So far I have one bigamist, one wedding objected to by the brides father when he found out about the wedding (she was only 13! a very long time ago I must add), two relatives who spent 7 year 'holidays' in Australia - one for staying out after curfew hours in Ireland! and I have recently discovered a murder so that will need some investigating.... more hours of fun!
  Rich relatives lost their money and others who fought through the courts and lost even more money to their barristers.
  One relative fought in Oliver Cromwell's army in Ireland 1649 and a later one sold his cattle and corn to Napoleon to feed his army to fight the British... oops!
  Another brother-in-law was a Baron and is buried in Westminster Abbey.
  And another has gone down in history being the bad guy in the film Zulu (the real character who took his troops the wrong way which led to a very bloody end... oops again! Very colourful this side of the family....
  
  But I have also come across some uncanny co-incidences. I found one cousin from Cumberland who was a Footman to the Prince and Princess of Wales in 1891 (my mothers side of the family)then later found a brother from my fathers side of the family (Monmouthshire) who also worked as a cellarman for the Prince and Princes of Wales and appear on the same census image, these two families did not merge together until 1953!
  
  Anyone else found similar uncanny co-incidences from far afield that makes you wonder whether it was fate that your family was meant to be?

  Link to this forum: Interesting skeletons Anyone want to share?

  Report message11

Back to top