Genealogy Chat

See below - soon!

In 1861 Mary Jervis is living in Kenley, Shropshire, with her widowed father Richard. On 26 July 1863 in Kenley, there was a baptism of Edward, illegitimate son of Mary Jervis, spinster. On 24 September 1863 in Kenley Mary Jervis (spinster) marries her cousin, Edward Habberley (bachelor). (Mary is 18, Edward is 31). On 25 March 1866 in Kenley, baptism of Martha, daughter of Edward and Mary Habberley. By 1871, Mary is widowed and living with her father again. Martha is with her, but Edward jnr (with the surname of Habberley) is in the workhouse/school. By 1881, Mary has remarried and is with her new family. Martha is with her. Edward jnr is a farm servant somewhere else. In 1891, Edward jnr is still a farm servant, but now he is working for/living with one of his Jervis uncles (Mary's brother). So.............. is Edward junior the son of Edward senior? And if so, why did they not marry before he was born? And why is he put in the workhouse? Tina

You will never know the real answer unfortunately I have been unable to create a working time machine. But what do you mean by cousins? Perhaps this was the problem that was sorted out by september and the fact that had a child persuaded everyone that it was better for them to get married.

What's Edward's surname in the later censuses? Habberley or Jervis? That might give a clue. Andrew.

Pippa (I am very disappointed in your failure to build a working time machine - lol). Edward and Martha were 1st cousins. Edward's mother was Richard Jervis's sister. I don't think there was a problem with 1st cousins marrying was there? They seem to do it all the time in my family (perhaps that explains why I am as mad as I am!) Andrew - Edward jnr remains Edward Habberley on all the censuses. It's his being called Edward that bothers me, given that Mary married an Edward. Otherwise I would be inclined to think that Edward snr had said, 'Look here, young Mary, I'll make you respectable but I'm not taking on someone else's by-blow - off to the workhouse with him'. I am beginning to feel really sorry for Edward jnr. Then again, maybe he took after his mother. In 1864 Mary indulged in a spot of burglary and got 6 weeks hard labour. She blamed her father - it seems that father and husband did not get on too well. Her parting shot was that she would be better in prison than at home! (They did both stand bail for her while she was on remand, though). Tina Tina

Tina, If it was me, I would want to have a look at the baptism register to see if the vicar was helpful, but perhaps you've tried that avenue? Jay

Did Edward junior marry? And yes I agree about that register. Per haps we could cobble together tme that time machine?

Hi Janet, yes I have looked at the baptism record. No inkling as to the identity of the father (and it's the same clergyman who subsequently baptises Martha, the legitimate daughter, about 3 years later, so presumably he is a regular in the parish). Having said that, I don't have a copy of the birth certificate. I wonder if there would be any point in getting that. Is it likely to give any more information that the baptism record. I would have thought if she is going to name the father it would be more likely at the baptism. And can I bear waiting for weeks and weeks for it and then being disappointed when it tells me nothing new? Tina

It's probably worth getting the birth certificate, since it may name the father even if Edward was illegitimate. Fathers of illegitimate children weren't SUPPOSED to be named on certs, but I think in the early days some registrars wrote them in anyway if the mother was willing to name the father. Andrew.

Was there perhaps an older Edward in the family who both Edwards could have been named after? Kate.

Tina I wouldnt bother with the BC - Merry posted the information a while ago that during, I think, 1860-1875, unmarried fathers were NOT allowed to be named on the cert, even if they were present at the Registration (Check this with Merry!). There is something a bit odd about this - young Edward goes to the Workhouse AFTER old Edward's death, so not a case of 'I'll take you but not your brat' - its his widowed MUM who put him in the Workhouse. Are you sure he is in the Workhouse and not an Industrial School? Sometimes Death benefits, or the Parish poor laws, allowed for an oldest son to go to an Industrial School (often part of a Workhouse) on the grounds that he was an orphan (that is, father dead) and therefore needed to learn a useful trade. A long shot - a very long shot - is that she took out a Bastardy Order in the Magistrates Court against the 'real' father. These are quite difficult to find for some reason after the 1830s, but you could try A2A or the Records Office. Olde Crone

I don't think I would rush to get the cert, Tina, I think along the same lines as you. My gut feeling is that perhaps Edward wasn't the father – we don’t know when Edward was born, only when he was bp (unless both dates were in the reg) What a pity Edward sen died before census, as there is no means of knowing if Edward jun ever actually lived with his mother & Edward sen. We are just assuming that that was so! Jay

I can't find a marriage for Edward jnr. In fact I can't find him by 1901 at all. I haven't hunted for a death properly yet. Perhaps the birth certificate would be worth investing in. I can't help but feel that if Edward snr was not his father, and would not have him in the household, then Edward jnr would probably have continued to be known as Edward Jervis (which is what he is registered as - I have checked the index), rather than Edward Habberley. This does seem to suggest that Edward snr did at least accept him into the family, in which case, why was he in the workhouse? I'm going round in circles here. Think I had better go to bed! Thanks everyone. Tina

Sorry Tina - know the feeling ! Have just re-read your post and realised that Edward jun DID take Edward sen's name. I got confused and thought he had kept his MOTHER's name Just shows what happens when you get tired, even if you think you're not! Changing camps now - well, it is a female prerogative! Jay

Of course, you will never know the full story exactly but seems to me that young Ed Jervis was born 1863. Maybe days or weeks later old Richard got his shotgun and Edward Habberley married the mother of young Ed who had auto name changed from Jervis to Habberley. If mum did go to prison then Goodness knows what E H was doing but seems he wasn't supporting his wife (who, you say,burgled) and child who appears to have been put in 'care' - the workhouse ! and possibly left there until he was of an age to go out and earn a crust. Meanwhile a daughter came on the scene and is shown on the '71 census and the father died in 1870 - seems he was about 10 years older than his wife - could be interesting to find Why he died ? was he a villan too ??

Mornin' all. Have re-read this thread with my morning brain in - always works so much better than the evening brain. Olde Crone - thanks for the info about birth certs and unmarried fathers, shall not waste my money now, but I will look further into the industrial school possibility. The problem is that I do not know whether young Edward was ever part of the household after Mary's marriage to Edward snr. It seems to me that the fact that young Edward (although registered at his birth as Edward Jervis), subsequently took and retained Edward snr's surname, suggests that Edward snr at the very least accepted him as part of the household, even if he was not in fact the father. I am rather taken by the suggestion of old Richard getting out his shotgun and going after Edward snr! They were uncle and nephew and all lived close by to each other. It must have caused terrible ructions in the family! Can you just imagine the conversation between the parents of Edward snr and Mary. Mary's father (to his sister), 'Your lad's had his wicked way with my poor little motherless girl. She's nobbut a lass - he's a grown man old enough to know better.' Edward snr's mother, 'I won't have you blaming my Eddie for this. He always did have a soft heart, if she came fluttering her eyelashes at him he'd be like butter in her hands. And your girl is no better than she should be - just like her mother! You put that gun down this instant, Richard Jervis. I'll speak to Eddie in my own good time'. The court case when Mary was charged with burglary took place about a year after the wedding. Apparently Mary nipped into the house of the shopkeeper down the road, while the shopkeeper had gone to market. Mary stole some tea and sugar, and about 5 bob (25p to any youngsters reading this) in small change. She forced the back door with a 'draining tool' (I imagine something like a fork for digging drains, it obviously had prongs from the description of the marks it made on the door) which was laying nearby. About 4 days after the break-in, the local police sergeant arrived at Mary's house. Someone must have tipped him off, but unfortunately there is no clue in the statements as to how he came by this information. Anyway, Mary denies it but the sergeant sends for her father and gets his permission to search the house (so we know that Mary and Edward snr are living with Richard). He finds the missing tea and sugar and some of the money hidden in a bolster on one of the beds. Mary weeps, and when her father asks why she is crying she turns on him and says, 'He has found the things I took from Mrs Carter's and now I shall have to go to prison. It is your fault for driving my husband out of doors'. I am inclined to take this to mean that Edward snr, instead of coming home at night like a good husband, is out boozing and Mary is short of housekeeping money because of this. Faced with the evidence, Mary gives in and says to the policeman, 'I did it. Those are the things. I shall be better off in prison than here.' It doesn't sound like a very happy household, does it. Mary is carted off to Shrewsbury by the police sergeant, but later in the day her husband and father both appear before a JP in Shrewsbury and stand bail for her until the next quarter sessions, when she pleads guilty and gets six weeks hard labour. I wonder if it brought the quarrelling menfolk to their senses, or just made matters even worse for poor Mary. However, nowhere in any of the statements (and the police sergeant's is quite extensive) is there any mention of a child. So where is Edward jnr while all this is going on? Is he already in the workhouse. But if he is, why is he not still called Edward Jervis? I think I shall have to see if I can trace a Bastardy Order. It's worth a try anyway. Joe - yes, Edward snr's death certificate will be worth getting I think. However, I don't really see Mary as a villan. More a desperate woman driven to the end of her tether! I don't think I want to envisage Edward as a villan either - I am related to both of these two you know!!! Tina