Genealogy Chat

I know this may be neigh-on impossible to answer, but why would a married couple with 5 kids then have their 6th one (Samual Renshaw Marriott) adopted? (1872). They then went on to have numerous more kids that they kept. Thing is, the familys surname was Marriott, and this lad was given 'Renshaw' as a middle name - Ive just found out that the man who adopted him was a Mr Renshaw. So it must have been planned from birth, if not slightly before. Mr Renshaw wasnt rich, he lodged with another family. Ive bought Samuel's birth cert, and his parents are both Marriotts; dispelling my theory that Mr Renshaw was his dad. (Illigitimate kids sometimes had their fathers surname as a middle name). On Samuels marriage cert he married as Samuel Renshaw Marriott, but dropped the Renshaw from his name after. (I presume so anyway, because his kids birth AND marriage certs have Samuel Marriott on, no mention of Renshaw.)

You would never know. Adoption was not legalised until 1927,prior to that children were 'taken in' by friends,neighbours etc. Glen

Rebekah Several scenarios present themselves! The most innocent one is that the family were very poor, or the mother very ill...Mr Renshaw had no children of his own and Mrs Renshaw desperately wanted a child.So off he went to live with them and have a far better life than he would with his natural parents. And there may have been contact between the families - there was no legal adoption then so no rules and regulations governing the behaviour of any of the parties. Another explanation is that Mrs Marriott had a fling with Mr Renshaw. Mr Marriott found out, but wasnt going to embarrass himself in front of the Registrar (who registered the birth?), or did not find out till later. Yet another scenario - is there a daughter in the household old enough to be his mother? There, that should keep you going for a bit - let me know if they dont work, I can probably dream up something even more bizarre! Olde Crone

Ooh thanks Old Crone! Samuels mother reg'd the birth. She was illiterate, but both her and her husbands names had been filled in by the registar, and she marked it with a cross. Dont know if her husband was present. As far as I can see he only had older brothers, no sisters til later. Presuming the couple hadnt had more kids adopted that is!

Rebekah The children of married women were automatically presumed in law, to be the children of her husband. The Registrar would not have ASKED her if the child was someone else's! But perhaps I am being unkind? I think my first idea was probably the best one. Olde Crone