Brother/Sister Husband/Wife

rfj1001 · Post by **rfj1001** » 18 May 2006 20:35

There's been a genealogy problem that has been perplexing me for a while and I'm now as certain as I can be of what happened.

Jack had a sister Jill. Jill had an illegitimate daughter - Daisy. In the 1851 census, all were shown as sons and daughters of Thomas.

However, in the 1861 and 1871 census Jack and Jill were shown as man and wife with Daisy as the daughter.

Daisy later married and, in the 1881 census, Jack and Jill are shown as father and mother in law of Daisy's husband (confirming they were living together as man and wife).

Any thoughts on how best to present it in FH. (At the moment I have Jack and Jill as children of Thomas - with a child Daisy. It gives the best visual representation of them living together as man/wife and child but obviously this suggests Jack is the blood father, rather than what I think happened. There is then a complex note to try to explain what I think happened.)

Tx

ID:1632

YouTube · Post by **Jane** » 18 May 2006 20:48

Can I add another option, that Jack was Jill's 'partner' rather than her true brother perhaps having the same surname as Jill, so Son in Law.

Have you found baptisums for Jack and Jill showing Thomas as the Father?

rfj1001 · Post by **rfj1001** » 18 May 2006 21:11

The earliest I can get back to is the 1851 census when Jack and Jill were in their late 20's - so your thought of Jack being a partner is a real possibility.

The 1841 census has drawn a /complete/ blank on about six people I could probably search for (so far); and searching the IGI records for baptism or marriage records has also drawn a blank.

At the moment, I'm just keeping to the earliest piece of written evidence I have, which is brother/sister - but I'll add your thought into the note as well.

The joy and frustration of genealogy

Post by **nsw** » 18 May 2006 21:25

Could they have been step-children with no parents in common? e.g. Jacks mother died and so his father married Jill's widowed mother?

martync · Post by **martync** » 19 May 2006 08:52

A Census can easily lead you astray the first one I found showed my GGgrandfather William living with his Uncle and Aunt; John & Mary who were shown as husband & wife. This was in my family tree for quite a while before I found 2 other censuses that showed them as brother and sister. I am sure now from other information that they were brother and sister who never married (to other people not each other of course!

) and it does seem that my GGgrandfather spent almost all his childhood living with them. It would seem that it was not at all rare that children who came from quite large families were raised by other family members that did not have many children or even grandparents.

rfj1001 · Post by **rfj1001** » 19 May 2006 08:56

Obviously another possibility - but the number of events that have to occur in a reasonably short timeframe (2 premature spouse deaths and one friendship leading to a second marriage) make it less likely - IMHO. If this was the case

I'm also not sure why the 1851 census would need to describe them all as 3 brothers and sisters other than pure inaccuracy.

On balance, I still favour the thought that Daisy was described in 1851 as a daughter when she actually was a grand-daughter (apparently reasonably common practice when a single daughter gave birth to a child) - but whether Jack is a brother (as per 1851 census) or partner (as per Jane's suggestion) I just don't know.

Over the weekend I'm going to go through the 1841 census in much more detail. If I can find Jack in the household it supports the fact he was part of the family - if I can find the household but not Jack, it supports Jane's thought that he might be the boyfriend!

Still leaves me with the original problem of how to decsribe it in FH though

Family Historian User Group