Would This Be Likely?

[Just Kia]

Samuel ASHBY and Ann (ms PINFOLD) married Q4 1841 and had 9 children
Mary 1842; John 1844; Frederick 1847; Alfred 1849; Ann 1852; Joseph 1854; Emma 1858; Fanny 1873??; George 1879??
Are the last 2 children a bit too far after Emma?
As Ann PINFOLD was born abt 1814 this puts her at about 59 in 1873, about 65 in 1879 - is this really plausible?
They are on the 1881 census RG11/3091/F19/P32 but Samuel and Ann are on their own in 1891

[avm228]

I'd bet my bottom dollar that the last two were not natural children of Ann.  In these sorts of situations the most common anomaly is that they're illegitimate children of the daughters, thus grandchildren but brought up as though they were children of the family.

Anna

[nanny jan]

Hi,

Could Fanny and George be grandchildren? This seems more plausible.

Do you have their birth certs which show Ann and Samuel as their parents?  There's 15 years between Emma and Fanny!


Nanny Jan

[Galium]

Maybe the enumerator slipped up, and forgot to put 'grand' in front of 'daughter' and 'son' ?

[nessy]

Hi
I agree with Anna.  I think they will turn out to be illegitimate children of the daughters.  I had a few of these in my Cheshire Tree and my Scottish Tree.
Nessy

[NadT]

Hi,

I think you'll find they're grandchildren.  There's a fanny Ashby aged 18, daughter of (o) Frederick Ashby b1848 carpenter, widow on the 1891 census in Coventry.  Can't find George on teh 1891, but there's a Greorge Francis Ashby born leamington 1878 on the 1901 census in brompton Barracks, Medway Kent.

They look as though they may be yours.

Nad

[Just Kia]

Thank you, I think that confirms what I was feeling - that it's not really likely.
Well spotted Nad, looks very likely to be them.