Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Illegitimate child conundrum
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Sharon | Report | 24 Jun 2005 13:30 |
|
Hello, I wonder if anyone has any suggestions concerning the fate of an illegitimate child born in 1901. Flora Hales is listed in the Salvation Army Mothers hospital in Hackney on the 1901 Census. She had a daughter and named her Bertha. I have Bertha's birth certificate and the birth was registered by Flora, approx 14 days later, the address she gave was for another Salvation Army home in Hackney. I know Flora returned home to Kent, and married George Hammond in Teynham (don't have the year to hand but think it was 1905.) I believe their first born child was George William Hammond b. 1906. Now for the confusing bit, on 3rd May 1910 Flora arrived in New York and travelled with her son George, going on to join her husband in Ohio. I've searched the Ellis Island site but can't find any reference to Bertha. In the 1910 US census though Flora is living in Franklin Township, Ohio with a daughter called Bertha Marie Hammond who is supposedly 5 years old. Do you think it's likely that she kept the child, who then took her husbands surname, and the name was recorded wrongly. Or could this be a second daughter called Bertha. From searching FreeBMD I can only find the Bertha of George, so surely if she's have a child the year before this would also appear. Sorry this is a bit long, any suggestions or thoughts you have would be greatfully appreciated as this is driving me mad! Sharon :o) |
|||
|
Jane | Report | 24 Jun 2005 15:10 |
|
Hi Sharon, I wonder if it might be worth getting in touch with the Salvation Army to see if you could at least find out if Bertha was adopted. The second Bertha is a puzzle tho' as the dates don't seem to agree ,do they? and I'm pretty certain that only in 1841 were ages rounded up or down. Regards Jane |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 24 Jun 2005 16:39 |
|
Where does it say Bertha Marie was born? If she was with the family when they came over in 1910 she should be listed with them as a passenger. Bertha b. 1901 could have been adopted/fostered out and perhaps given a different surname. Or she might have died and her mother named Bertha Marie after her. The age difference may be a mistake - have you seen the original image? nell |
|||
|
Sharon | Report | 24 Jun 2005 17:01 |
|
Thanks for the suggestion Jane, I'll give the Salvation Army a try and hopefully they'll have some records for her. Nell, I've viewed the original census entry on Ancestry and it definitely says that she is 5 and was born in Ohio, this is also the case for her mother, but for several of my family members they are listed as born in the US, when it was actually England. I've seen the ship's manifest that Flora and her son are but there is no sign of any daughter. Thank you both for your views on this, it's good to get a fresh perspective on things. Sharon :o) |
|||