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
Would they have reported her missing?
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Robyne | Report | 25 Jun 2006 10:37 |
|
Thanks so much. I have no idea where the husband is in 1901, he appears to be nowhere but i havent found a death cert for him so i dont think he died. ooh i hate this side of my family, they just werent thinking of us lot down the line who would be trying to find them!! |
|||
|
♥Athena | Report | 25 Jun 2006 01:08 |
|
Hi Robyne I have a similar incident on my tree, whereby my grt grt grandfather set up home with a married woman (after his wife died) in the late 1890s - so we are dealing with around the same timescale as yours. I found this woman's husband and their child on the 1901 census, so I knew that she was not a widow, but I wondered why she would have left her 10 yr old daughter behind. I did some research into it and found out that if a woman left her husband for another man she was not allowed to take the children with her (unless the husband agreed) neither was she allowed to take any of her possessions from the family home! So, basically, she left with the clothes on her back and that was about it. I suppose in the case of a mutual separation some husbands may have been kind enough to allow the wife to take what things she had - but it would still be up to him if she took the kids or not. |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 24 Jun 2006 22:56 |
|
You don't have to report anyone missing, unless you want someone to find them. If she ran off to be with another man, perhaps her husband thought good riddance. It's also possible that people knew where she was but didn't want to divulge the information. Since she would appear to be the guilty party by abandoning her husband - that's how it would have seemed then - it was likely that the family would think that her children would be contaminated by seeing her. That happened a lot in those days. nell |
|||
|
Heather | Report | 24 Jun 2006 19:37 |
|
Oh Robyne, dont know. It may well be that they knew about her new bloke and threw her out. Its not like a mum not to take a child with her, is it. If the kiddie was with gran - where was the hubby at that time? |
|||
|
Robyne | Report | 24 Jun 2006 18:15 |
|
Hi, my gg grandmother married in 1894 and had a child in 1895, she soon after left them and had several children and married my gg grandad. In 1901 i have found the child with his paternal grandparents in Burton, and my gg grandmother in London with her first 2 children with my gg grandad. She changed her name so im presuming there was never a divorce, but would they have had to report her missing or would it all have been hushed up? |
|||