RootsChat.Com

Thank you. I'm without the Internet at home for a few days, so I will provide a better reply then. 

Thank you. I'll look into making the tree on Ancestry.

I agree; it's a fascinating mystery for me, and a very frustrating one. I'm not a romantic sort of person, but I think it's a romantic story, and I'm intrigued by it. This past week, I've done very little research, as I've been concentrating on this mystery for six months, spending so much time every day on it, and I decided that it was time to take care of other things in life for a few days.I'm starting to think that I will never find her. It should be rather simple: she has to be a daughter of either George Scott's brothers or a generation back (to George's father), but there are so many men with those names born around the same year in Birmingham, if indeed that is where they are from. And, if they are not from Birmingham, the thought of researching all of England, Scotland, or Ireland for such a common name is enough to make me scream! I feel as if I am going around in circles.

Thanks for your explanation, and whilst I can certainly understand you not particularly wanting to send all that proof of ID (talk about red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy!) but I don't really understand needing to check with your cousin first, although that's your call. 

For what it's worth, I really don't think its a different Stuart Scott - as well as the 1909 passenger list with both Stuart & Marion, we have we have a record showing Gerald Easton being Cousin to Eleanor O'Blenis (1930 census), a passenger list showing Gerald arriving in the US and going to his mother Mrs W Easton (9 Aug 1907), and a border crossing for record of Helen [Ellen/Eleanor] Scott daughter of Charles Scott of Warwick, Bermuda going to her Aunt, Mrs Wm Easton.

As I said, I do understand the annoyance at the excessive proof of ID requirements, but I think I'll bow out now as there's not much point in me spending time & effort finding leads that have to be 'approved' by someone else fist.

I ask my cousin as I do not know him personally, and he knows his side of the family's history. We only "met" via DNA testing, and correspond through the website, so I email him questions and he replies. I know nothing of his side of the family; only what he tells me. He also has living relatives that he can ask about their ancestors. I may be related to him, but we do not know each other, and have never met. I never knew about my ancestor until I met him on the DNA website. I am not asking him for permission for anything--only information.

Quote from: JewellersGranddaughter on Wednesday 27 June 18 17:53 BST (UK)

As of 1861, the punishment in Bermuda for a Caucasian woman bearing a black child was whipping, so would their marriage be legal in Bermuda in 1865, when their first child was born? (I read that online somewhere, but can't remember the source).

Samuel was technically a free man when that first child was born?

"1863. January 1. President Lincoln, aware of the public's growing support of abolition, issued the Emancipation Proclamation declaring that all slaves in areas still in rebellion were, in the eyes of the federal government, free."
"1865. June 2.  The US Civil War ended with victory for the Union when General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of the Confederate forces west of the Mississippi, surrendered to Union forces"

Wonder what month their first child was born in?

I did read that there were many more females than males on Bermuda too, so it may have been hard to find a European male to have a relationship with. Aprroximately 6 or 7 men per 10 females due to war, shipwrecks and disease https://www.jstor.org/stable/3174484?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

In Bermuda, where Sam was born, lived, etc., the slaves were freed on August 1, 1834. At the point  where he met  and had children with my ancestor, it was circa 1865.  Now, if Sam were much older than we estimate (being born circa 1850), it could be possible that he was born into slavery, but family lore says that he was born around 1850.

As for the male to female ratio: Sam's life was threatened because of this relationship with my ancestor, so I wonder if these sort of relationships were acceptable to the general population in Bermuda at that time. At one point, Sam had to go into hiding to escape being killed. Poor Sam--he must have really loved Miss Scott.

So  we now need censuses to show all the siblings

Could it be a male Scott who went to Bermuda  not a mystery woman
Or

A bermudan man coming to England  and fathering a Scott child

I get the feeling roosters may beven able to join the dots for you  .
Avm I hadn't noticed their ages at marriage. ..I wonder how common it was for 15 year olds to marry .

As far as we know, Sam was always in Bermuda up to that point. The story is that he met my female ancestor, fell in love, and they had two sons, Charles and Stuart.  My feeling is that they were at least in their 20's. Just a feeling, maybe because I wonder if she were on her own, and not under parental control, possibly a young widow? Back then, I would imagine that parents would not be happy that their daughter bore a child out of wedlock, so I wonder how that happened again (possibly twice, if Marion Scott was a sibling; see the other posts)?  I think that the parents would have kept her from him, possibly shipping her to England to stay with family. Also, we don't think they were married. I personally don't think they were. As of 1861, the punishment in Bermuda for a Caucasian woman bearing a black child was whipping, so would their marriage be legal in Bermuda in 1865, when their first child was born? (I read that online somewhere, but can't remember the source). Now, in the U.S., where I live, some states have antiquated laws that are rarely enforced : New York State has a very old law that states that adultery is illegal--but it's rarely enforced (or half the state would probably be doing jail time!  ). So, perhaps the Bermuda law was an antiquated law that was not enforced (?)