Young children 'farmed out'?

[Jean and Tonic]

Was it possible in the mid 1800s to just give children away? I have a family where the children just 'go missing' . Some reappear and some obviously stay missing with the new name they appear to be given.... very strange.

I've gone through the census for years with just first names ... but if the surname has changed, I don't suppose there's any chance of ever finding them.

Jean

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Was it possible in the mid 1800s to just give children away?

Yes, it was. There are lots of possibilities for what could happen to a child - anything you can think of probably happened to some.

[KiteRunner]

Jean, sorry if I'm being thick here, but if they stay missing, how do you know they were given a new name?

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

I would say that for every child that has truly gone missing (ie is living as the child of another couple with a different surname) there are probably another 50 children (perhaps more!) who have either been missed when the family census details were taken, or were with other family members but missed from the census, or were at a school or apprenticed away or in the navy and don't have sufficient details or incorrect details, so they can't be traced etc etc etc

[Jean and Tonic]

I'm assuming Kite ....... no death ... but didn't appear on the census with that name or with the mother again.

I'm beginning to realise Merry ..... missing from the age of 2 weeks ..some only four ...some older so I suppose they could have gone abroad or in the army .....

So sad .... The only other explanation is .. maybe they weren't her children in the first place and she was just 'minding them' but gave them her name on the census ... although two appeared on later census...but not earlier ones.... sounds like a 'baby farm'.... or maybe they were to different fathers ..... then they went with the father ... and took his name.

Jean

[KiteRunner]

can you give us some details, please, Jean? Then maybe we can help look.

[Jean and Tonic]

I doubt it Kite ....... but thanks for the offer ... it would be brilliant if I could throw some light on at least some of the children.

I don't know what happened to these two ..... there's a few John Ingleby/Ingoldbys about but they have different parents .... I've followed some of them through the census ... there's a nephew in one family but he's a lawyer or something which I don't think will be him as I think most of the family were illiterate. ...... the whole family is very disjointed.


Jean

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Hi Jean,

I'm guessing because of what you are asking that you know what happened to the parents, Samuel and Jane? I am struggling to find anything at all on this couple. I can't find a marriage or Samuel before or after 1861 or Ann Stott or anyone! I also can't find any registrations for the children (but maybe they were not registered?)

Anyway, have you got the details for the parents in later censuses?

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Now I'm confused!! I see Stott is possibly Jane's surname (Jane Stott, b right place and date on the 1851) before marriage, but on the earlier census her mother is Sarah not Ann!

Perhaps that's a red herring?

[Jean and Tonic]

Thanks Merry ... now you see my problem with this family.

Jean

[KiteRunner]

Thanks, Jean. Sorry, but I've not had time to look yet.

So when you say "missing from the age of 2 weeks", I suppose what you mean is that he is on the census at the age of 2 weeks but you can't find him 10 years later. Some children were working as servants by that age and living in with the family they were working for, and some were away at school, or of course there could be lots of other reasons. I will hopefully have some time to hunt later.

[Jean and Tonic]

I suppose he could have been working Kite but I didn't find him on any of the later census. I somehow don't think he would be away at school his mother couldn't write and at least one of his siblings couldn't write his name either.
Jean

[KiteRunner]

I've been having a look, but no luck so far.

[Phoenix]

You have two boys, 4 yrs apart in age who are on the 1861 and not the 1871 census and two boys, 4 years apart in age who are on the 1871 and not the 1861 census.

I do wonder, given the other discrepancies, if these might be the same two children, with different names? Samuel may have been called something else while his dad (another Samuel) was at home. Not sure about John/Richard but it might explain why you can't find the births. And presumably Jane never married Samuel Ingoldby?

[Phoenix]

NB It's also possible that 2 yrs is written as 2 squiggle and interpreted (by the enumerator) as 2 wks.

[Jean and Tonic]

thanks for that Phoenix ... it's funny, I was just looking at that this morning .... and wondering.

They do seem close together don't they?

Do you know I think that just might be the answer. No, I don't think she did marry Samuel.. I can't even find a marriage for anyone called Stoddart. It must have been sometime between 1851 and 1861 so I was thinking that Richard James 1855 must have been her first child and maybe called Stoddart ..... but no luck ... there's no Stotts married to Stoddarts.

I thought maybe her maiden name was stoddart even though her father was James Stott but she married samuel Leech in 1881 as a widow. ... oh I'm a bit lost.

the only two children I can find in 1901 are Samuel and James Richard born 1868 in richmond and what is strange..is James married a Catherine Stoddart and her father came from Newsham where mother Jane was born.... I thought they were brother and sister but her mother was called emma Mason... and James said his father was James Ingleby..not samuel.......

all very strange .... after 10 years it's driving me mad ......and I'm starting to ramble on.

Thanks a lot for the input...... all very welcome...because I'm running out of ideas.
Jean

[Phoenix]

Samuel comes from Duffield, amd the name seems spelled consistently before his move as Hingley. Ingoldby just looks like a fanciful rendering.

[Mary from Italy]

I've followed some of them through the census ... there's a nephew in one family but he's a lawyer or something which I don't think will be him as I think most of the family were illiterate. ......

Are you sure it doesn't say "sawyer"?

[Jean and Tonic]

Yes Pheonix ..... I'm glad you said that because after quite a few years I had to come to the conclusion that the name was Hingley .... although Thomas Hingley and Ann Mee married 1802 had ten children all on IGI in the name of Ingleby ...so I wasn't 100% sure or happy about how the name started. The name is sometimes Ingley/Hingleby/Ingoldby/Ingelby...I think it depends on the local speak and where they were in the country.

There is a a Hingley timber business still in Duffield ... which was started by one on the early brothers. That's what's strange that the rest of the early family is still Hingley ... only this family name changed... maybe because they went north.

I'll have another look at that Mary .... but if I remember rightly ... the family were all professionals.

I keep telling myself to settle with what I've got .... then every now and then I don't feel happy with it.

Jean

[Olde Crone Holden]

Jean

Lawyer/sawyer.

I don't think the word Lawyer was used much in the 19th century. What we today call a lawyer, they would have called a solicitor.

The fact that they had a timber business clinches this, imho!

OC