* Family group report with 3 adults

[Deirdre784]

Hi, i'm writing a book using family group reports and have a problem i've not encountered before.

Joseph Smith married Martha (no marriage found yet) and they were together in 1841 with a young daughter and a servant named Elizabeth Weaver. Joseph and Martha are on the 1851 and 1861 as husband and wife, with Elizabeth a relative / servant. Seven children altogether. The first few were registered with Elizabeth as the mother, no father named, then one had father Joseph Smith mother Elizabeth Weaver, then the last few were registered with Elizabeth being Smith formerly Weaver (all 7 certificates are on a tree on Ancestry). In 1871 and 1881 Joseph and Elizabeth are still living together, Martha is elsewhere, but still married. In 1891, after Joseph's death in 1890, Elizabeth is listed as Smith, widow. She died in 1899 as Weaver, Joseph not mentioned, with the death registered by a son-in-law. Martha was recorded as a widow in 1891, suggesting the family was in contact, and died in 1893, as the widow of Joseph Smith, registered by one of Elizabeth's daughters, listed as a niece.

I've also found a court case in the paper in 1869 where an intruder was found in the house and Elizabeth Weaver says she has lived with Joseph Smith for 21 years and had 7 children with him.

So how do i record this.... they are not really 2 separate families as such but a family of 3. Any ideas?

[Mark1834]

IMO, that illustrates limitations in using FH reports as your final output.

It’s not an uncommon situation (in my family anyway ), and I would record it as two separate families, with your best estimate of which child goes with which mother. You could add additional family links such that both biological and de facto mothers are recorded, but I don’t usually bother with that extra detail.

Remember that census relationships are only what the family wanted them recorded as. It is common to see a mistress listed as a wife, or a deserted (or deserting) partner shown as married, as divorce was not an option for most people at that time.

I then have a narrative note attached to the common parent describing the circumstances. It will involve duplication in the standard Group Sheet reports, but it ensures that relationships are recorded accurately. In my view, accuracy trumps elegance.

[Deirdre784]

Thanks Mark, i was coming to the same conclusion - showing Joseph with 2 'wives'. i do a short intro to each family group so can explain it there. was confusing myself as all 3 adults were together for 3 censuses!

[Deirdre784]

to add to the complication i am now wondering if they were gypsies - i couldn't read the location in 1851 on ancestry but it's '(Open Tent), Ponts and Pit Common, Usk' according to FMP.

[tatewise]

It appears that there is only one father involved, Joseph Smith, but with a surname like Smith great care must be taken.
I found Joseph Smith, Martha Smith, one child Eleanor, and Elizabeth Weaver in the 1851 census entry in Monmouthshire at (Open Tent), Ponts and Pit Common, Usk, Pontypool and the entry on the next page is also an (Open Tent).

However, I struggled to find the equivalent group in the 1841 or 1861 census with matching ages and birth places.

Assuming your relationships are confirmed, then one option is to record Joseph Smith with two Spouse tabs.
One for Martha and one for Elizabeth, with children associated with the appropriate mother.
The fact that they cohabited with overlapping dates will appear in the Facts tab.

That will produce a Family Group Sheet report for both 'families' (just like anyone who has multiple partnerships/marriages).
The Facts in the two 'families' will have a certain amount of duplication, but that is to be expected.

[Mark1834]

Reading back my comment, I noticed that there’s something missing - there’s no equivalent term for “mistress” to describe an illicit male sexual partner. I had to look it up, and “paramour” was the best offering, but I must admit it’s not a term I’ve come across before.

[Woodg]

I had to look it up, and “paramour” was the best offering, but I must admit it’s not a term I’ve come across before.

I don't suppose "bit of scruff on the side" would be politically correct. And a bit to wordy.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Mark, my great grandmother (1865-1932) had a toy-boy

[AdrianBruce]

Assuming that you are indeed satisfied that there is some blending going on, then I would record the basic family details as suggested above - i.e. Joseph Smith has 2 spouse tabs, one for Martha, and one for Elizabeth.

What I will also do is record Residence facts against each of these people on the various dates that you can sensibly speak about and in the notes for the Residence facts on each person I would explain that the household actually contained Joseph, Martha, Elizabeth and .... In other words, describe the full list of residents on each occasion for each individual.

This is, in my view, the simplest way to record a "complex" household. Err, providing you or your readers do actually read notes... Some people tend to skip them...

Of course, there are variations, such as sharing a Note Record between them but I am slowly coming to the conclusion that, in printed reports, shared Note Records can get missed by the reader if they refer back to a specific event.

[davidf]

The problem is a paramour can be male or female - so you have not really got the counter-party to mistress. The best that I can think of is "Johnson" - but I hope that quickly loses currency - particularly since it can be applied to so many illicit or immoral roles.

Ideally you want 4 terms - two male and two female and then some way of distinguish whether the individual was "independent" or "already in a relationship".

Some might say this is being unnecessarily moralistic, but often the legal status is required to be able to understand wills and administrations. I have never really been happy with the relationship type pull-down - assumed "married" unless marked as "Divorced" or "separated" (you can be both sequentially), or marked as "unmarried couple" or "never married" (never really sure of the exact difference - was the first "common law H&W" whilst the latter mere ships that passed in the night - more "once coupled"?)

Certainly if writing Family history rather than collating FH output, a narrative of how the different relationships may have evolved and how the writer determined what had happened is often more engaging than a "group report". You then may end up saying "took a mistress" (married man acquiring an additional medium to long-term relationship) and "took a lover" (married woman acquiring an additional medium to long-term relationship). But like "Paramour", "lover" is not necessarily gendered. And relatives can be very offended by the idea that a Great great grandfather seemed to have a woman in every port (which for clarity is referring to sailors and sea-ports).

[ColeValleyGirl]

"unmarried couple" or "never married" (never really sure of the exact difference - was the first "common law H&W" whilst the latter mere ships that passed in the night - more "once coupled"?)

That's how I read the distinction -- two people who considered themselves a couple, versus two people who had offspring but no enduring (however you measure that) relationship. (I mention offspring because that's usually the impetus for creating a family of 'never married' parents.)

[Deirdre784]

Thanks everyone, been out for a walk with the dogs and come back to loads of comments!

i'll go with the Joseph having 2 wives, though no marriage (or maiden name yet found for Martha which doesn't help, but none of the children were hers), and Joseph and Elizabeth didn't marry.

They are definitely the same family, though they moved a lot. Martha was born 1813-15 in Llantarnam, Monmouthshire, Joseph 1810-1815 in Belper, Derbyshire (one census says Defford), and Elizabeth 1828-1830, born Ludlow, Shropshire (with one saying 1813 but her age on the return isn't clear).

[AdrianBruce]

... I have never really been happy with the relationship type pull-down - assumed "married" unless marked as "Divorced" or "separated" (you can be both sequentially), ...

Personally, I confess I've never had a problem with married / separated / divorced on the basis that they tend to go in that order and referring to one implies the preceding ones happened at some time. This is, after all, a single valued, untimed attribute and the full story should be recorded in the events for the couple.

... or marked as "unmarried couple" or "never married" (never really sure of the exact difference - was the first "common law H&W" whilst the latter mere ships that passed in the night - more "once coupled"?) ...

I would also agree with your interpretation that it's about the length of time.

PS I wouldn't be me if I didn't remind people that there is no such thing as a Common Law Husband / Wife / Marriage in England & Wales. But that's probably why you put it in quotes, David. I think Scotland actually came close to it with the irregular marriage form, "Marriage By Repute". But you'd need to be Rebecca Probert, I suspect, to say if there is any major difference between the Scottish form and the undefinable English & Welsh form.

[davidf]

PS I wouldn't be me if I didn't remind people that there is no such thing as a Common Law Husband / Wife / Marriage in England & Wales. But that's probably why you put it in quotes, David. I think Scotland actually came close to it with the irregular marriage form, "Marriage By Repute". But you'd need to be Rebecca Probert, I suspect, to say if there is any major difference between the Scottish form and the undefinable English & Welsh form.

Interesting what a quick search on DDG gives you:

Law Society of Scotland December 2005. In a surprise move, the Scottish Executive has announced the impending abolition of marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute (“MCHR”). Not before time, “common law marriage” is to be a thing of the past.

Irregular marriage was abolished in England and Wales by Lord Hardwicke’s Act of 1753. Hardwicke acted against the “scandal” of marriage being carried out in informal and boisterous circumstances, but the crucial problem was that young people could marry without parental consent. Scotland resisted Hardwicke’s attempt to end irregular marriage in Scotland in 1755, and so running away to Scotland to get married would become something of a fashion, and a scandal, over the years. Furious red-faced English fathers (and presumably some mothers) pursued their wayward offspring in a race to the Scottish border where marriage could be had over the anvil at Gretna without parental consent....

[AdrianBruce]

...
Interesting what a quick search on DDG gives you:

Law Society of Scotland December 2005. In a surprise move, the Scottish Executive has announced the impending abolition of marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute (“MCHR”). Not before time, “common law marriage” is to be a thing of the past.

Irregular marriage was abolished in England and Wales by Lord Hardwicke’s Act of 1753. ...

Interesting that they do equate MCHR with "common law marriage".

I think we'd need Professor(?) Probert's opinion as to whether or not the pre-1754 situation in England & Wales amounted to irregular marriage in the sense that Scotland used it. So far as I know, even the infamous Fleet Marriages were conducted by a clergyman in something like the right form - it's just that the publishing of the banns was a touch deficient!

[Mark1834]

Mark, my great grandmother (1865-1932) had a toy-boy

So did my g-g-g-grandmother! She was 43 years old when she gave birth to a daughter via a 21-year-old father. It was her third of four "families" in FH (widowed twice, this "common law" relationship, and finally a third husband for her final 20 years of life).

[davidf]

Marriages could have all sorts of statuses, regular and irregular. What to make of a Probated Will stating:

This is the last Will and Testament of me Elizabeth F commonly called Elizabeth P the reputed Wife of John P ... Whereas by the Will of my Mother Mary F ... she directed that her unmarried Daughters so long as they or either of them should remain unmarried should have the use ... and whereas I am advised that by reason of my said reputed Husband the said John P having been previously married to my late sister Catherine P deceased my marriage is invalid by Law and I am therefore entitled to act as a feme sole

John P (m Catherine F 1855, m Elizabeth F 1859). Catherine and Elizabeth F were sisters, and consequently John’s second marriage was, at that time, illegal. The 1835 Deceased Wife’s Sister Act (Lord Lyndhurst’s Act) made such unions illegal until it was repealed by the 1907 Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act.