Genealogy Chat

Don't think they were blood relatives because they had two children to look after both age 9 with completely different surnames and it describes them as" from pauper child base" there names were Lewis Judd, John Bridgeman and his Brother Thomas bridgeman and they were all born different places within the Bideford Union district . They were also described as lodgers , and 9 and 7 is a very young age to be a lodger. Their own 11 year old daughter is also living with the Eastmans she has their surname and is described as daughter not lodger. I don't know but will take some investigating. KIM

Kim, very interesting facts; dont want to sound pessimistic, but I think a pauper's lot in those day's was every bit as bad as you could possibly think, and often people would take in children purely to gain the parish relief to sustain themselves, not for any other reason. I think that the family who took the child were quite probably his blood relatives and were probably encouraged by way of financial reward to take the child out of the workhouse. If you ever get the opportunity to visit Southwell do so, and you will see depravation at its worse (and remember that it's been spruced up now). Charles Dickens had the era off to a tee - remember Oliver Twist? Good luck with your search, see if the Records Office nearest the Workhouse have the admission records - worth a try. Jacqui

Having read up on the site Pam recommended, it seems that the workhouses were getting so grim and overcrowded people were given encouragement by any means to leave and return to their home village , the Eastmans seem to be in charge of the Workhouse when the child was born 1842 but by the 1851 census (which Sally kindly looked up for me on the records board )an Eastman family (probably but not necessarily relatives) described as paupers (formally ag labourer) have taken Lewis in along with 3 other children, as I understood it they would receive an allowance for each child and therefore it was worth there while and they alleviated the pressure on the overcrowded workhouse. This is what I am "assuming ," having only looked into it this week. Mary Judd the parent is not with the child nor is she in the Workhouse by the 1851census, however there is a single Mary Judd as a servant who is 42 , which could possibly be mother. Obviously this is mostly guesswork !I have llooked on igi to find her mother was Mary Lewis which could explain the child's name of Lewis. I think the website was quite clear in explaining that a pauper as we think of it was not necessarily as bad as we thought. The parish would pay a releif for those who could care for the elderly or children of paupers. KIM

One of my husbands relatives had 2 childen in Southwell Union House, so it obviously did nothing for her soul. 10 years later she is found still unmarried, with three more children living as 'housekeeper' to a farm labourer. Did they earn more money in those days? Her three youngest children were all born at the farm! Needless to say, none of her children were baptised by the church! Jackie

Hello again Kim. After reading the various responses to your question, it would seem to me that you would need to work back from the birth cert. you have date-wise, and then try to establish where the mother was at the time she became pregnant. If for instance her admission to the workhouse was 1 year before baby's arrival, then some one in the workhouse was obviously responsible for the "dirty deed". Admission records for some Workhouses are usually kept at the local Records Office in the area where the Workhouse was, and this could be a good starting point. How did you determine the child was "fostered" by other's who had left the workhouse? Did they perhaps have a connection with the girl you are investigating. Seems to me that in those days it would have been a great great act of charity to foster children from the workhouse, when the individuals themselves must have been next to destitution themselves at the time. Jacqui

Hi Kim You could also try this site http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/ Kay

The National Trust workhouse at Southwell really is a must see. Visit the National trust website and check it out. regardS JAY

Thankyou Amanda for your comments, I've found and printed off the details, from the Bideford Union workhouse , The child concerned was born in 1842 , so his mother was pre 1837 , I have found a few details on the igi but nothing to 'confirm' who she is. Without being married she had no marriage cert for me to check her father out . I can't get hold of birth cert as she wouldn't have one , although she will be local to Bideford there are many women with her name and she could have married again and have a different surname by 1881 or have died long before 1881 if her life was hard , either way I wonder why she didn't bring up her own child , unless she died in childbirth. None of this looks very good for getting further back. Ann has looked on the 1851 census for me and found a possible match , but I don't see how to confirm this . Kim

Jacqueline, I visited the Southwell workhouse not long after it opened in 2002. At the time of my visit I was struck by how 'Sanitised' it looked with all the cream walls and lack of furniture. There was the accomodation used in the 1960's for unmarried mothers which looked grim enough, but we cannot imagine what life was like in these places in Georgian and Victorian times. As I mentioned to Kim in my previous message, I have found two ancestors who died in Sussex workhouses in the mid 1800's despite having family in the surrounding areas, why did they have to go to the workhouse? Perhaps I am applying our modern day familial and social ethics to a byegone age? Just a thought!..................Pam

Thankyou ,Pam and Jacqueline, for that info will look on website, the birth certificate is clearly stating born Bideford Union workhouse , and the informant is the master of the Workhouse . there is no father's name , and the mother isn't married. I understand it practice that the fathers details aren't entered unless the father is present at registration, so he obviously wasn't and so there is no means of me tracing him.I have worked out with people on this sites help that the son was brought up by another husband and wife who also were in the workhouse at the time, but left and seem to have brought up three 'pauper children' must have been first sort of foster parents I suppose. KIM

Hello Kim - there is a restored Workhouse in Southwell in Notts and just recently went for a look around. Yes it's true that the dormitories were separate, as were the exercise yards etc. However segregation of that sort never stopped people in the past from "enjoying" themselves. Goodness knows the existence in the Workhouse was grim enough but the inmates did go out on work parties etc (in the case of Southwell to the orchards and fruit gardens in the grounds), so I suspect that whilst it might have been true that the girl was pregnant when she arrived at the Workhouse, it could also be true that she became pregnant whilst in there. Not much help, but as they say "where there's a will, there's a way". Jacqui

Hello Kim, I have found two ancestors who died in the workhouse but they were elderly males so I don't know the answer to your question but try this website, very informative: http://www.workhouses.org.uk/ Pam

I understand that males and females were split up in dormitories, so if a child is born in the workhouse , is it safe to "assume" the mother got pregnant before she entered the workhouse, ie entered it because she was pregnant not married and presumably out of work. rather than entered the workhouse and then became pregnant? Or will I never Know? Kim