|
I'm following up a relative and have got quite confused by him so I wondered what everyone makes of my puzzle.
I have a George Hurst, born 1836 probably in Lathom, Lancashire to Thomas Hurst and Mary Lyon, but they move to Simonswood and thereafter he says he was born at Simonswood. From the parish records, I identified that he married Elizabeth Rimmer on 13 May 1862 at Aughton. I think she was still alive in 1864 as she and George were godparents to his nephew, John Pope.
But by 1871 George is living in Skelmersdale with a housekeeper named Elizabeth Bennett (b. 1841, Upholland) and a handful of children. These children seem to be called Bennett on the image, but George then married Elizabeth in 1871 and they had five children of their own. The Bennett children are known as Hurst by 1881 and each census year afterwards.
I had thought Elizabeth could have been married before but she seems to come up in 1861 as a Bennett. What I am not sure on is whether it is an enumerator's mistake or whether they are George's children with Elizabeth prior to marriage and they are being tactfully referred to as the "housekeeper's children".
|
|
I've seen lots of "housekeepers" who are the partners of the head of the house. If George married in 1871 it could be his first wife had died.
Rose
|
|
For reference purposes, is this them in 1871??
1871 Census
Name: George Hurst
Age: 25
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1846
Relation: Head
Gender: Male
Where born: Rimmonswood, Lancashire, England
Civil Parish: Skelmersdale
Ecclesiastical parish: St Paul
County/Island: Lancashire
Country: England
Registration district: Ormskirk
Sub-registration district: Lathom
ED, institution, or vessel: 7
Household schedule number: 324
Household Members: Name Age
Elizabeth Bennett 30 b. Upholland, Lancashire, Unmarried, Housekeeper
Ellen Bennett 5 months b.ca 1870, Skelermsdale, Housekeeper's Daughter
Martha Bennett 2 b.ca 1869, Upholland, Housekeeper's Daughter
Mary A Bennett 9 b.ca 1862, Upholland, Housekeeper's Daughter
Thomas Bennett 5 b.ca 1866, Upholland, Housekeeper's Daughter
William Bennett 36 b. Upholland, Unmarried, Boarder, Coal Miner
George Hurst 25 Widower, Carpenter Journeyman
From this ................ the youngest child was born in Skelmersdale and could possibly be George's child, the others ar shown as born in Upholland, and one at least pre-dates the death of George's first wife, so I would suspect these are her children alone ............... unless you can find evidence that George was also in Upholland at some time.
I suspect also that William Bennett could be Elizabeth's brother.
sylvia
|
|
If this is them in 1881, you will see that 3 of the Bennett children have kept their names .. could this imply that they are indeed "her" children, even the youngest one? Surely George would have acknowledged any that he had fathered before the marriage?
1881 Census
Name: George Hurst
Age: 45
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1836
Relation: Head
Spouse's Name: Elizabeth
Gender: Male
Where born: Simonswood, Lancashire, England
Civil Parish: Upholland
County/Island: Lancashire
Country: England
Street address: Albert Colly Cottages
Condition as to marriage: Married
Education:
Employment status: View Image
Occupation: Colliery Carpenter
Registration district: Wigan
Sub-registration district: Upholland
ED, institution, or vessel: 4
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members: Name Age
Ellen Bennett 10 b.ca 1881
Martha Bennett 12 b.ca 1879
Thomas Bennett 16 b.ca 1865
Elizabeth Hurst 40
George Hurst 45
George Hurst 3
John Hurst 8
Joseph Hurst 6
William Hurst
- - - -
George and Elizabeth Bennet's marriage registration, for reference
Marriages Sep 1871 (>99%)
BENNETT Elizabeth Ormskirk 8b 1091
Hurst George Ormskirk 8b 1091
sylvia
|
|
That is the very one, Sylvia - I think it a little strange, though, that she was so honest about it, but maybe she wasn't worried about what people thought. (I am so used to people lying for the sake of respectability!)
And as Rose says, I think probably he married the first wife and then she died within a couple of years. I was thinking it more logical that the first wife had had children so he called in a housekeeper to look after them, but he seems to have had a housekeeper who had children of her own.
|
