Genealogy Chat

My Gt Grandfather, John Eaton was born c1854 Ruddington, Notts, assumed to be the illegitimate son of my 2GGM, Rebecca Eaton. I have not found a christening record, or a civil registration of the birth, but my sources are limited to what's available on Ancestry. Does anyone have access to/the time to have a look at other records (probably including non-conformist ones). I'd love to know (but will probably never find out) the father's name, but even confirming the birth date or christening date would be real progress. Anyone?

Who is he with on 1861 census? Reg

I haven't found him in 1861, but I have him in 1871, where my note reads 'His position in the household of Thomas Cross (Rebecca Eaton's husband) in the 1871 census is consistent with him being Thomas' step-son, and the illegitimate son of Rebecca (father unknown).'

On ancestry GRO index - John Eaton Dec Q 1853 Sharlow 7b 295 looks like it could be worth investigating Gwynne

For info.....1871 in full. Clearly, son in law means stepson (in today's parlance) Name: John Eaton Age: 17 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1854 Relation: Son-in-law Gender: Male Where born: Ruddington, Nottinghamshire, England Civil Parish: Ruddington County/Island: Nottinghamshire Country: England Registration district: Basford Sub-registration district: Wilford ED, institution, or vessel: 8 Neighbors: View others on page Household schedule number: 6 Household Members: Name Age Elizabeth Cross 2 Rebecca Cross 39 Thomas Cross 55 Thomas Cross 17 John Eaton 17 Reg

There is another John Eaton in March Q 1854, Basford, but I can't read the numbers, sorry Gwynne

Ruddington was in Basford district. Reg

The 1871 details posted by Reg are the correct 'John' His mother is easy enough to find in 1851 too. She was the 18 year-old daughter of a widow, Mary Eaton, and employed in Ruddington as a seamstress. I have no reason to think she ever left the village, but I cant find her, or her son John anywhere in Notts in 1861. A puzzle.

This doesn't help to track down John but Rebecca and her mother Mary appear on 1861 census in Ruddington RG9/2446 folio 95 page 20 Mary Eaton Head Widow 71 Female Servant born Attenborough? and there appears to be something written in the blind/deaf/dumb column Rebecca Eaton Daur Unm 28 born Ruddington 1837online has them transcribed as Coton but it looks like Eaton to me. No John in the household though. Update - Ancestry has transcribed them as Caton

Yes, many thanks - that is Rebecca in 1861, still unmarried and living with her widowed mother (whose occupation looks like 'formerly seamer' rather than female servant). So if she is the mother of John, where was he? I hope I haven't got John's parentage wrong. There seems little doubt that Rebecca married Thomas Cross (Dec-1866 Basford/7b/244) and John appears in the 1871 household. So where was he in 1861? Methinks I may have to read through the entire 1861 census, because if his name is mistranscribed in the ancestry index, it may be the only way I'll find him.

Did you put in an error report for those mistranscriptions? If not, I might do so. Christine

No, I don't have the Eaton/Cross marriage cert, but my John was already c12 at the date of the wedding. For what it's worth, When John Eaton married for the 2nd time in 1887, Thomas Cross is named as father. Having had my attention drawn to Caton as a mistranscription of the family name, I have looked again at the Ruddington 1861 census, and I think I may have found an answer. Rebecca had an elder brother, Thomas, and my tree already includes children Ann c1848, Harriet c1850 & Sarah c1854. There is a Thomas Eaton (Caton!), a widower, in 1861 with children Harriet, William Sarah and JOHN (aged 5). This John was therefore Rebecca's nephew, but if this is 'my' John, I'm not sure how he ends up 10 years later living with his Aunt and described as her husband's step-son. I have never come across step-son to mean anything other than son-in-law in this period, but perhaps it is a catch-all for close relative? Does anyone else think this is credible. If this is the answer to the puzzle, then ironically, I only have to demote Rebecca to Aunt, and substitute Thomas wife, Charlotte, as mother, but the rest of my ancestry stands, because Rebecca & Thomas had the same parents!

Christine - yes I have reported the mistranscriptions, but I don't know how long it takes for the index to reflect the alternate name.

Clive I often wonder if our ancestors, baffled at how to exactly describe a relationship, DID put -son-in-law etc. I mean - imagine trying to write 'the wife's nephew' in that little box on the census form! Or maybe they launched into a long rambling explanation of the relationship, the Enumerator got fed up trying to follow it and wrote 'son-in-law'. The exact details of relationships were not important for the purpose of the census. OC

It could be that John was Rebecca's son but went to stay with his uncle and cousins and was recorded as son on the 1861 census in error. The parish registers and/or a birth certificate would give the answer. Why not email Nttingham conty records office and see if they will do a limited lookup for you for baptism of John Eaton about 1854 - 56? or that birth registration Gwynne found in Basford district looks promising. Could you order it but specify Ruddington birthplace as a check point?

Brenda - what awful handwriting! I can't make out the name, but it isn't Eaton. My Eatons were agricultural labourers, rather than farmers of 100 acres with employees!

Judith, I agree that the birth certificate has to be the next step - it's a shame I can't read the reference in the manuscript index. There isn't a baptism in IGI, but I wonder whether there may be a record in PR as you say. An Olde Crone Holden (great name!) I can imagine that step-son could cover a multitude of relationships, and I can think of a good reason why John may have ended up living with his Aunt as a young man, because he was a framework knitter (as so many were in Ruddington). If Thomas was his father, he was a simple agricultural labourer, whereas Rebecca's husband was a FWK too. He may well have been learning the trade in this cottage industry. It's obvious that he formed a close relationship with Rebecca & her husband Thomas, because Thomas is actually named as father in his 2nd marriage cert. That leaves one other possibility: that Thomas Cross WAS his father, but that for some reason, he was born out-of-wedlock many years before they were to marry. I know of no impediment to an earlier marriage, and John never took his 'father's' name - so I think it unlikely.

Just a quick thank you to everyone who has taken the trouble to help me with my puzzle. I think I am on the right path to the solution, but I need (as so often) a certificate for confirmation. Meanwhile, I will be looking at my provisional 'new' direct ancestors in detail tomorrow. I had previously thought that my Gt Grandfather was illegitimate, and I had a big gap in my pedigree that I didn't think that I was ever going to fill, and now, I have a possible new family to fill that gap and to research. Of course if the Ancestry indices weren't full of transcription errors in the first place ....