This story is haunting, and it has been plaguing me for the last 2 days...
I have read most of the letters, and they are extremely confusing, one minute you get the feeling that this can't be a birth mother talking of her own child, the next, you aren't so sure. She NEVER refers to the child by name only as 'the little one', or 'little girl' - when describing her she says 'she has refined little ways, brown eyes and fair hair' nothing more personal. A T Scott sends the adoptive parents money to buy her a toy. There is an issue raised regarding a 'little chair' and a 'ration book' both of which cannot be found. For sure, the child spent most of her time in another building away from her 'mother' anyway.
"Dear Mrs. Wright,
Let me start by saying is the little one happy and well which I feel sure she is, did you receive my letter safe?
I was ever so delighted with your letter. I did fancy it all it must have been good to see her so happy. I do so hope she will continue so, well now I must say I am sorry about ration book, I have been to her nurse twice first time she was out and second time she could not put her hand on it, I don't want to say anything that I shoul be sorry for but It looks as if she as lost it, but I don't think it's so bad now is it, besides you can start with a new one in your district. tell them the circumstances and I'm sure they'll put you right, now I spoke about her little chair, well I am sorry to say that too seems gone, she as got another little girl now and seems not to want to part of course I did not want a fuss so let her keep it you have forgot her age. well it is 3 and 3 months, she was born on the 2nd of April, that was on a Sunday by the way, at 2 o'clock midday, 1916. now wishing you all to be very very happy I will close.
Yours Very Sincerely
Mrs AT Scott"
Altogether, you definitely have the impression that this woman is not being completely straight. Legalities are also obviously discussed in the letters, as A T Scott does a kind of formal statement, signing her name to the fact that she will never lay claim to the child in the future etc. Then things switch, and in one letter, she said she would struggle on with the child until the end of her life, if she couldn't find a loving home. In another, When she has handed the child over, she writes after, and says 'the first thing I remember the moment you were out of sight, was I did not say goodbye, but the excitement done that, I was so anxious to leave her while smiling, so slipped away while she was so happy. well I am not sad as I expected I should be, that is simply because I am so sure she is in good hands, excuse me not saying more now for I am still a little confused....'etc and you feel a bit of her pain, watching as her child goes with this other woman....and wanting only the childs happiness...
The name Mona Julia seems to be as sure a thing as it could be under the circumstances...(the child was 3 , and would surely know her own name?)
I looked again at that Mona J Purdy, b.1916 in St Geo H Sq...MMN Moy.... a possible scenario is that A T Scott had an affair with a married man, and named the child Purdy after the father, and Moy could have been a fake name, to hide her own identity...or even her real name, but not that much help...there were no A T Moy's on the births on FreeBMD.
Thing is...there is a death reg, for a Mona Joyce Purdy in 1999, and her birth date is Oct 1916. (no other Mona J Purdy registered in 1916)
There is only one Purdy marriege that I found, also in St.Geo.H.Sq in 1913 an Arthur J Purdy, occ: milkman (!!!) to a Catherine R Yaxley. Both of them were living in St Geo H Sq in 1911. Kathy, you say you have ordered the Purdy cert...I, like Valda, do think that is crucial to rule that one out.
So that's where I'm at...lots of loose ends...
Kathy you have said you are going to try and find out more...do post here as well...the more people looking at these things the better...especially as most here are far better at this game than I!!!!
