RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => London and Middlesex => Topic started by: Daltonator86 on Saturday 17 June 23 15:34 BST (UK)
-
She was born in 1848 in 1849 in Paddington, London, the daughter of George Paxton and Harriet Elizabeth Fletcher. The family were well-off, for in the first Census in which she was present, 1851, at their Paddington home, they have a servant.
Anyhow, there were literal rumours within the family that she was actually adopted; she had an apparently strained relationship with her parents and my uncle and was almost driven to suicide until she married and had a family of her own (which saved her). These are stories that have been passed down the family tree. I know there is not much concrete evidence there, but i am aware that adoptions (however subtle and under the radar) would have been more common amongst wealthier than poorer families, although wealthier families would have maybe felt more of an ethnical duty to work within the law.
But basically, is there the possibility of finding her birth certificate (which should show the maiden name of her mother?), or do they not go that far back? Obviously, if it does show 'Fletcher' as it, I shouldn't be surprised.
-
It appears she was their child:
PAXTON, ELLEN REBECCA FLETCHER
GRO Reference: 1848 J Quarter in KENSINGTON PADDINGTON AND FULHAM Volume 03 Page 254
You can order her birth certificate from the GRO:
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/login.asp
You will have to make an account first, if you haven't already got one.
As background, civil registration started in England and Wales in 1837, but it is important to note that not all children were registered.
Queenie :)
-
It appears she was their child:
PAXTON, ELLEN REBECCA FLETCHER
GRO Reference: 1848 J Quarter in KENSINGTON PADDINGTON AND FULHAM Volume 03 Page 254
You can order her birth certificate from the GRO:
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/login.asp
You will have to make an account first, if you haven't already got one.
Queenie :)
Well that kinda settles it then... It's just so strange. This is on my mother's side. My father's side is 100% Irish (and that is proven by DNA and DNA matches). My mother's side is seemingly mostly English, with some Irish and Welsh, however, I have quite a series of Dutch relatives...
In particular, I have been to able to access the family trees of my Dutch relatives, and they have no ancestors from outside of the Netherlands. It was this particular line of my mother's side that was most likely to showcase this connection. Other than that, it's very unusual, albeit reassuring in that there are (likely) no real loose ends.
-
Question: are these Dutch DNA matches on MyHeritage?
Queenie :)
-
Question: are these Dutch DNA matches on MyHeritage?
Queenie :)
They are, yes. 23andMe and Ancestry aren't all that popular in NL, generally DNA testing isn't as a rule, anyway (not like in the Anglosphere), but MyHeritage is where Dutchies do congregate if one wants to delve a little 'deeper' into one's family tree.
-
Baptism at St Mary Paddington, 7 May 1848
Born 18 April 1848
Ellen Rebecca
Parents George + Harriet Paxton
Abode Salem Road Bayswater
Father a Wood sawyer
-
I'm not saying that this definitely applies to your situation (I don't know how strong these Dutch matches are), but MyHeritage is sort of famous for these odd clusters of Europeans that seem to share DNA with the tester, but there is no obvious explanation for how they connect to the tester's tree.
My mother's test displays the same phenomenon, but mostly with Swedish/Norwegian matches. The highest, however, is only 50.3cM. She also has a 48.5cM match with a man who seems to be 100% Dutch.
Just something to keep in mind. Here is a quote from a thread about MyHeritage's Scandinavian matches:
I think this comes up every week, it's also in the Common Room right at this moment ;D. It is known 'phenomena' of MyHeritage to give Brits unlikely close Scandinavian matches. They are mostly probably either false matches, IBD or IBS. MyHeritage has to use imputation to match between kits, because they switched chips themselves in 2019, the old one only having a fairly small overlap to the new one, and also to allow for uploads from other companies that also use different chips. Someone did a survey of matches below 30cM for a child and their parents, and found a large %, about 1/3 below 24cM were false matches, also larger matches with segments below 12cM were also very unreliable with a high % false.
Queenie :)
-
Baptism at St Mary Paddington, 7 May 1848
Born 18 April 1848
Ellen Rebecca
Parents George + Harriet Paxton
Abode Salem Road Bayswater
Father a Wood sawyer
On ancestry, transcribed as Payton
-
I'm not saying that this definitely applies to your situation (I don't know how strong these Dutch matches are), but MyHeritage is sort of famous for these odd clusters of Europeans that seem to share DNA with the tester, but there is no obvious explanation for how they connect to the tester's tree.
My mother's test displays the same phenomenon, but mostly with Swedish/Norwegian matches. The highest, however, is only 50.3cM. She also has a 48.5cM match with a man who seems to be 100% Dutch.
Just something to keep in mind. Here is a quote from a thread about MyHeritage's Scandinavian matches:
I think this comes up every week, it's also in the Common Room right at this moment ;D. It is known 'phenomena' of MyHeritage to give Brits unlikely close Scandinavian matches. They are mostly probably either false matches, IBD or IBS. MyHeritage has to use imputation to match between kits, because they switched chips themselves in 2019, the old one only having a fairly small overlap to the new one, and also to allow for uploads from other companies that also use different chips. Someone did a survey of matches below 30cM for a child and their parents, and found a large %, about 1/3 below 24cM were false matches, also larger matches with segments below 12cM were also very unreliable with a high % false.
Queenie :)
I was kinda relieved when I read about the 'Scandinavian' aspect because, yes, I also have quite a few relatives from Scandinavia, Norway and Denmark as well. The Netherlands isn't exactly Scandinavia, though.
-
Baptism at St Mary Paddington, 7 May 1848
Born 18 April 1848
Ellen Rebecca
Parents George + Harriet Paxton
Abode Salem Road Bayswater
Father a Wood sawyer
On ancestry, transcribed as Payton
I should discount ANY possibility that she was adopted?
-
Are you aware that Harriet was a widow when she married William Paxon in 1848, she was previously married in 1840 to a William George.
John
-
Are you aware that Harriet was a widow when she married William Paxon in 1848, she was previously married in 1840 to a William George.
John
I was indeed, unaware.
-
Do you subscribe to Ancestry.
John
-
Do you subscribe to Ancestry.
John
I used to... but not anymore
-
Free access to ancestry is available at a lot of libraries, depending on where you live. I have also seen a really cheap subscription mentioned on here, sorry I cannot post the link at the moment.
This request has also been posted onrootschat using a different username, is that you. I have posted a link to this post on it to save others spending time looking for what has already been found here
-
Her biological father was probably the first husband.
Adoption would not have been necessary if she was born after her mother's second marriage her father recorded on birth certificate would be the second husband but there would not be a DNA connection to the PAXTON side
Is that confirmed by your DNA matches .?
Ps If you changed your rootschat profile you can ask a moderator to delete or merge the duplicate post
-
Her biological father was probably the first husband.
No he wasn't. The second marriage was in 1843, a son was born in 1846 and then Ellen in 1848 and another son in 1850.
Debra :)
-
Adoption was not formalised at the time - there was no legal process for it. Anyone could take a new name, as long as there was no intent to defraud. It occurred frequently among people of all social classes. Men married women with kids and raised those kids as their own. People took in the illegitimate children of their daughters and raised them as "son" rather than "grandson".
While wrong information could have been given on the birth certificate there would have been little motive to do so.
Her address, 22 Gloucester Gardens, at marriage - has this been investigated? The witnesses do not seem to be relatives.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-996G-PQ4C?i=340&cc=3734475
It also looks to me based on the timing of her first child that she was pregnant when she married, which could have been enough to cause a rift in the family.
-
Adoption was not formalised at the time - there was no legal process for it. Anyone could take a new name, as long as there was no intent to defraud. It occurred frequently among people of all social classes. Men married women with kids and raised those kids as their own. People took in the illegitimate children of their daughters and raised them as "son" rather than "grandson".
While wrong information could have been given on the birth certificate there would have been little motive to do so.
Her address, 22 Gloucester Gardens, at marriage - has this been investigated? The witnesses do not seem to be relatives.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-996G-PQ4C?i=340&cc=3734475
It also looks to me based on the timing of her first child that she was pregnant when she married, which could have been enough to cause a rift in the family.
This is the marriage of her mother (Fletcher), you are referring to, right?
-
No, I am referring to Ellen Rebecca's marriage that I linked.
Her marriage took place October 13th 1868. A daughter Rosa Helen Welch was registered in March quarter, 1869, which means the absolute latest this child was born was 31 March 1869. So Ellen/Helen was certainly pregnant at the time she got married, likely a couple months along,
-
Rosa's birthdate on her school admission register is given as 15 Dec 1868 so would have been registered in the first quarter of 1869. The birth was 2 months after the marriage.
Debra :)
-
No, I am referring to Ellen Rebecca's marriage that I linked.
Her marriage took place October 13th 1868. A daughter Rosa Helen Welch was registered in March quarter, 1869, which means the absolute latest this child was born was 31 March 1869. So Ellen/Helen was certainly pregnant at the time she got married, likely a couple months along,
Gotcha. Cheeky as it may have been on Ellen's part, i don't think this concerns her parents all that much.
-
Re reply 15 & 16
I've just checked an original record on ancestry of marriage of George PAXTON to widow Harriet GEORGE daughter of William FLETCHER
It is 13th August and looks like 1843 but the marriage on same page is clearly 1848
So I believe it is a mistranscription
Rebecca was born April 1848
Would the DNA results make more sense if she was daughter of William GEORGE ?
-
They are definitely all 1843 on those pages. The marriage banns have been indexed as well.
Debra :)
-
Apologies I must have misread
According to a tree on Ancestry William GEORGE died in 1843
it looks like Harriet did not have any children with him.
There is a baptism for a brother William John PAXTON in 1846 parents George & Harriet so the couple were definitely together then too..
on ancestry There are also some photos of Helen Rebecca Paxton with her Husband George Henry WELCH
-
...... my uncle and was almost driven to suicide until she married and had a family of her own (which saved her).
She was born in 1848 - when was your uncle born, what was his relationship to her? This seems a bit extreme for something that he thought happened so long ago. I would be looking for another event a bit closer to home to make him react in such a way.
Debra :)
-
...... my uncle and was almost driven to suicide until she married and had a family of her own (which saved her).
She was born in 1848 - when was your uncle born, what was his relationship to her? This seems a bit extreme for something that he thought happened so long ago. I would be looking for another event a bit closer to home to make him react in such a way.
Debra :)
I am not sure whether this is interesting, but Harriet Fletcher's parents don't seem to be present at the time of her 1843 marriage to George Welch.
-
Baptism at St Mary Paddington, 7 May 1848
Born 18 April 1848
Ellen Rebecca
Parents George + Harriet Paxton
Abode Salem Road Bayswater
Father a Wood sawyer
Would it have been hard to get away with pretending one was the baby's biological parents, even if the baby in question was born only 3 weeks prior (to the baptism)
-
No it would not have been hard
I investigated a baby trafficking case and many of the adoptive mothers travelled to a different town with her husband..+!they had the baptism of the child that they had just had delivered to them.