Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Was 'widowed' sometimes a euphemism for 'divorced'
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Paul | Report | 3 Sep 2006 14:07 |
|
John - indeedy, the younger children could possibly have been at a neighbours, or grandparents etc on the day of the census. The main confusion is that Richard (aka Robert) said he was a widower in 1861, but then Rebecca was alive an well but widowed in 1871... |
|||
|
Uncle John | Report | 3 Sep 2006 13:59 |
|
It's perfectly possible that some of the family were 'just visiting' elsewhere on census day. I have a family which moved about 20 miles between 1891 and 1901 but in 1901 the wife was away visiting her sister, who is also in my tree. The 1861 family looks a bit 'iffy', given the good match between 1851 and 1871. J |
|||
|
Paul | Report | 3 Sep 2006 13:51 |
|
Christine, very valid point but... the 1851 and the 1871 Rebeccas were both born in Iver Bucks, and the ages match... so I would think they're the same person ? More curious is children appearing and disappearing, Richard (sr) changing his name to Robert, and then later in life Richard (jr) called himself Charles ! |
|||
|
Christine in Herts | Report | 3 Sep 2006 13:48 |
|
There could be a new Rebecca. My OH's cousin & I spent some time acquiring a great chunk of tree which wasn't actually ours - there had been a bereavement and a new marriage between (say) 1851 & 1871, but both wives were called Elizabeth. Having said that, divorce was almost impossible, and certainly hugely expensive, so people did claim to be widowed - or even single - when they most certainly were not! Christine |
|||
|
Paul | Report | 3 Sep 2006 13:37 |
|
Am looking at a family here where things don't look quite right ? in 1851 the family consists of; Richard and Rebecca Knock, plus 5 children, William, Mary, Ann, Amelia and Ellanor (spelt as found). in 1861, the family was Robert (widower), plus 4 children, Ann, Richard, Alfred and Amelia. The details for Amelia match those above (and so do Ann's, more or less). in 1871, the family consists of Rebecca (widow), and Richard (jr)... so... was there a miraculous resurrection ? Or had Richard and Rebecca simply parted ways in 1861 |
|||
|
Paul | Report | 3 Sep 2006 13:31 |
|
bear with me a sec... |
|||