Genealogy Chat

Thanks so much Deborah and Judith x

Nurse child was the term used for children who were fostered. Orphans and other children cared for by the workhouse were put out to be cared for as a 'nurse child' until old enough to be found an apprenticeship. The term also seems to be used quite often for more informal arrangements, eg when a relative fosters an orphaned child. Judith

Hi Helen Nurse child was the term used for a child who was fostered out, either because the parents were dead or unable to look after the child. It wasn't unheard of that these children would often stay with the family and some would take the name of the family. Of course many would return home to their families. Much happiness Debi

I thought I'd try this question once more. Does anyone know why, on the 1881 census, by the side of a 2yr old, by occupation, it would say 'Nurse Child'???? Many Thanks

Thanks to Beverly, I have now had a look at Mary Ann Carr on the 1881 census, it states she was a boarder (with my rellies) and by occupation - it states Nurse Child? Does anyone know what this means?

I think I'll have to. I'm really curious. I just don't have an understanding hubby that's all! He thinks I'm wasting money as it is. What he doesn't know won't hurt him though eh?

Wow Beverley! Thank you! I haven't had chance to search 1881 yet - I was waiting for the three year old to go to bed! Can you do a family search on 1881 or just search for a person at one time? I feel really excited that I now have proof she is a 'Carr' I just guess I'll never know if she was related really or not etc Thanks again though - really chuffed!!

on 1881 census John barker head 59 tean stafford sarah wife 48 crockstone stafford thomas son 25 john son 21 kingsley william son 19 kingsley mary ann carr boarder 2 cheadle stafford hope this helps beverly

Thanks so much for everybodys advice on this by the way. You're all fab and now I'm even more convinced Mary Ann is a 'Carr' I'll keep plodding!

Glynis - John & Sarah married in 1853, so she can't be a step daughter (unless she can and I've now completely lost the plot! Yvonne, no this isn't whom I'm looking for - but maybe they're related I suppose! I found the family on 1881 last week, John, Sarah and sons, John, William and Thomas were all living together in Kingsley but I never checked to see if Mary Ann was!

Are these any good to you, picked up from the Familysearch site from the 1881 census. John BARKER Head M Male 24 Ince, Stafford, England Gardener Mary Ann BARKER Wife M Female 28 Alcester, Warwick, England Charlotte A. BARKER Daur Female 6 Birkenhead, Cheshire, England William BARKER Son Male 4 Birkenhead, Cheshire, England Mary Ann BARKER Daur Female 2 Birkenhead, Cheshire, England Ethell BARKER Daur Female 11 m Birkenhead, Cheshire, England Joseph WASHINGTON Lodger U Male 28 Eastham, Cheshire, England Gardener -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source Information: Dwelling 15 Acton Road Census Place Higher Bebington, Cheshire, England Family History Library Film 1341854 Public Records Office Reference RG11 Piece / Folio 3570 / 16 Page Number 1

Looks like Carr to me. What about if she is John's step-daughter? This has happend to me on 1871 census where several children were actually step-children but were down as sons & daughters. Check to see what 1881 census says ( I can't get on it at the mo.) You could also see if John has been married before or whether there was a Sarah Carr on previous census, married to someone else.

Geoff - Yes, great idea, I'll look at 1881 as my next task. I've had a quick look for a Mary ann Barker but can't see one that would fit. Lesley - I noticed that as well. I wonder if Mary Ann was sister to Emily - maybe their parents died and then John & Sarah Barker took her under their wing. Why say she was their daughter though if she wasn't? Was that common?

Try to find her on the 1881 census, which might help clarify things. nell

I think you need to look for her on 1881 census - it may make the position a bit clearer. She is no more likely to "belong" to Thomas rather than John in my opinion.

Could someone please look at the 1891 census for me as I need another opinion. My great grandfather, Herbert Walter Barker, 5 (birthplace Kingsley, Staffs - living with grandparents John and Sarah, and their sons John & Thomas. My query is with Mary Ann. I can't find no births for a Mary Ann Barker and also, I'm convinced the census reads Mary Ann Carr, which is why I need a second opinion please. Interestingly, I can find a birth for a Mary Ann Carr in Cheadle at the correct time. She married a William Brunt in 1897 and a Mary Ann Brunt was a witness to Herberts marriage in 1910. If it is Carr, could it mean she is maybe Thomas' daughter? I know that John is Herbert's father. Any views etc would be greatly appreciated as I'm feeling a bit baffled! Thanks!