RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: Calvin Wyatt on Thursday 21 November 19 20:50 GMT (UK)
-
I have a poor law application for Scotland in 1908 that I'm having trouble understanding. I can't quite make out most of the writing and I'm not sure which information applies to which family due to the layout of the document. My ancestors in this document are Helen and James McMenemy.
-
The upper snippet relates to three children placed in the care of Euphemia Greenshields or Scholes at 41 Glebe Street, Bellshill. The second child is James.
Name: James McMenemy
Place of birth: 27 Ashgrave St, Glasgow
Date of birth: 11-5-14
Sex: M
Date when child received: 21 Feby 1916
Date of notification to parish council: 22 Feby 1916
Persons from whom infants received:
Name: (??) Helen McMenemy
Address: 27 Ashgrave St, Glasgow
Terms agreed upon: 5/- weekly
The second snippet is a record of visits and notes. One visit soon after placement with follow-ups every three months. The notes from Feb 1916 top Jan 1917 must refer to James ( (the first child was back with Mum before Sep 1915 according to the second snippet and the third did not arrive until Jun 1917):
1916
Feby 25. Visited. House clean and tidy. Child seems well cared for.
May 31. do. Everything satisfactory
Augt 24. do. do
Nov 22. do. Child presently on a visit to his mother at 27
Ashgrave St, Glasgow
1917
Jany 15. Mrs Scholes reports child permanently with mother.
The note for 11 Sep 1915 is interesting:
Sept 11 At ( ?? ) Sheriff Court Mrs Scholes was convicted and admonished
The nature of the offence is not mentioned, but an admonishment suggests that it could not have been too serious - and it did not prevent her having James McMenemy placed with her around four months later.
Philip
-
Nice work Philip, the only thing I would add is that it might be Asgrove Street.
Carol
-
Nice work Philip, the only thing I would add is that it might be Asgrove Street.
Carol
Thanks, Carol - it's always nice to get a compliment.
I think you are right about the street spelling - yay for you - teamwork! :). I hovered between o and a, but decided to go for a, because I thought it looked more likely. I have just googled Ashgrave Street Glasgow - none found, but there is an Ashgrove Street.
-
I think it's Airdrie Sheriff Court (though probably not relevant to James McMenemy).
-
Thank you all very much this is so helpful! Is there a particular reason that the child would be in this arrangement?
-
Thank you all very much this is so helpful! Is there a particular reason that the child would be in this arrangement?
There are many possibilities. Do you know if there were other McMenemy children and when they were born?
A FEW POSSIBLE REASONS:
Illness of mother
Difficult pregnancy/childbirth of subsequent child - mum unable to care for James
Father died, walked out, or unable to work - leading to poverty
Abuse
(Not homelessness as the family address is consistent throughout)
Philip
-
No other children at this time but did have a child in 1918 which I'm not sure i quite understand as father was in the army and according to his army record, unless I'm reading it wrong, there seems to be no gaps or leave. My great grandfather was born to them in 1921.
-
I wonder whether the Mother was trying to keep her child safe as these were the war years, or, maybe she was doing vital war work herself.
Maybe his wife visited him or met up with him if he was in the country at some point without leave entitlement.
Carol
-
I wonder whether the Mother was trying to keep her child safe as these were the war years, or, maybe she was doing vital war work herself.
Maybe his wife visited him or met up with him if he was in the country at some point without leave entitlement.
Carol
Yes I had wondered if the war had an impact on why he was sent out of Glasgow. Bellshill where he was sent is pretty far from Dalmarnock and not even in Glasgow, so that may have been a factor.
Yes there has to be some explanation. I just wasn't sure if it was common for there to be time to see his wife etc or if we would be away from home for the full duration of his service.
-
Nice work Philip, the only thing I would add is that it might be Ashgrove Street.
Carol
Spelling correction.
-
I wonder whether the Mother was trying to keep her child safe as these were the war years, or, maybe she was doing vital war work herself.
I believe that this is unlikely as it would have been recorded as such - The Poor Relief Board would not have voluntarily paid for the care of the child without referencing a charge to the mother. I have found them to be very particular about retrieving money.
Maybe his wife visited him or met up with him if he was in the country at some point without leave entitlement.
Carol
Possible, but experience (and cynicism) tend to look for a different explanation ::)
-
I don't know the answer Falkyrn, just offering possible scenarios :-\ I guess sending for the birth certificate for the child might be the way forward.
Carol
-
I don't know the answer Falkyrn, just offering possible scenarios :-\ I guess sending for the birth certificate for the child might be the way forward.
Carol
Always good to get different viewpoints.
Unfortunately the paper trail is not always the answer, if the father of the child was not her husband a lot would depend upon the honesty of the woman when notifying the Registrar - there was a certain presumption of paternity when a married woman recorded the birth of a child.
-
The note for 11 Sep 1915 is interesting:
Sept 11 At ( ?? ) Sheriff Court Mrs Scholes was convicted and admonished
The nature of the offence is not mentioned, but an admonishment suggests that it could not have been too serious - and it did not prevent her having James McMenemy placed with her around four months later.
Wonder if it was actually 1914? A mention in Hamilton Advertiser newspaper of September 19th 1914, re a Euphemia Greenshields or Scholes under Breaches of the Children Act. She was admonished for neglecting to notify the Parish Council that a child under her charge had been removed from her care.
Payments were made to those taking on children, so obviously it had implications if a child was being paid for but wasn't living there.
-
I wonder whether the Mother was trying to keep her child safe as these were the war years, or, maybe she was doing vital war work herself.
I believe that this is unlikely as it would have been recorded as such - The Poor Relief Board would not have voluntarily paid for the care of the child without referencing a charge to the mother. I have found them to be very particular about retrieving money.
Maybe his wife visited him or met up with him if he was in the country at some point without leave entitlement.
Carol
Possible, but experience (and cynicism) tend to look for a different explanation ::)
This is Mary Ann, their second child's birth certificate. It notes her father is James but of course whether that's true or not, I'm not entirely sure.
-
Until proven otherwise the lady has to be given the benefit of the doubt :)
As Treetotal says one possibility is that the couple met up for a short time during his leave (official or otherwise) without any proof to either support or refute her claim regarding paternity the benefit of the doubt must apply.
-
Until proven otherwise the lady has to be given the benefit of the doubt :)
As Treetotal says one possibility is that the couple met up for a short time during his leave (official or otherwise) without any proof to either support or refute her claim regarding paternity the benefit of the doubt must apply.
I am inclined to believe her, she was well liked within the family im usually very skeptical, but in this case, i agree, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. it may also be that Ii'm misinterpreting the service record also.