Janet and Ivy BROWN (or THOMPSON) leaving the UK for N. America? 1890s

[ValJJJ]

Thanks dobfarm.  Some useful links. 

[Elwyn Soutter]

So what happened at Ellis Island, or was it just a port rather than a vetting place in those days?

At Ellis Island you could get a medical and you were checked to see if you were destitute or undesirable but that was about it. You could be refused entry for the above reasons but at that point you didn’t need formal identification. Nor identity documents, a work permit or anything like that. That all came later, mainly triggered by WW1.

[ValJJJ]

Thanks for that info. Wondering how they defined 'undesirable'!

I'm just checking London school records to see if Ivy did stay back in England.  Looking for Brown/Wayland/Thompson. Nothing so far.

Edit: no baptisms popping up either.

[dobfarm]

Wonder who Elizabeth King was ? a nurse aged 55 on same page 1891 census record as Ivy and mum Janet


https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QDVH-VT2?lang=en

[ValJJJ]

I looked her up and didn’t get far. Possibly her as a laundress in another census.

[dobfarm]

Looking at the whole picture with what you know (which is little) & what is commonsense.

Being Ivy was born illegitimate out of wedlock with Janet changing her surname to Mrs Thompson, its possible Janet never baptised Ivy or the church shunned her, then who would look after the baby while Janet earned a living as a Milliner?, last! I think the law would have been made in law all people and children are named on shipping passenger lists both sides of the Atlantic in case of disaster at sea.

Maybe Janet made a trip back to England between say 1896 to 1900 or collected her after marriage to William Caldwell, and being the person who brought Ivy up 1891 to 1900 still had Ivy on the 1901c census.

Therefore look at passenger lists post 1900.


 

[ValJJJ]

That occurred to me and have been looking for Ivy as a Brown, Thompson, Caldwell or Wayland in the England/Wales and Scotland 1901 census. No success. The enumerator or transcriber could have given her the household’s surname and there are A Lot of Ivy’s born 1891 but another angle that I’ll try.

[dobfarm]

There's one fact you do know, that is Janet Isobel Brown travelled to America on her own, then there must have been someone looking after Ivy Brown birth registered illegitimate (Thompson on the 1891 census) and Janet had tried to hid it being known she was a single parent mother by changing her surname to Thompson.

Therefore Janet could have used the surname of that person who looked after Ivy when Ivy eventually travelled to the USA, there is another scenario that because Ivy was an illegitimate born child travelling (knowing Janet already changed her surname once to Thompson to cover up the stigma of illegitimacy) could have used another made up surname for Ivy on that 1893 shipping journey to the USA using an excuse, saying the child was her niece or friends daughter. (anything to cover up the stigma Ivy was born illegitimate out of wedlock (a big thing those days ) which was the root cause of the deception)

[ValJJJ]

I'll PM you with the shipping manifest. I couldn't see any likely young child listed. Although in an earlier post by Sandra

Just read this.......

In 1893, infants were generally not listed on passenger lists unless they were traveling with their parents. Typically, only children who could be considered "able to read and write" were included in the passenger list, which usually required a ticket purchase. Therefore, it is unlikely that an infant under 2 would be listed on a passenger list in 1893

Sandra

Elizabeth King, who was the nurse in the 1891 census with Janet and Ivy, could have been the carer who took Ivy to the USA. I haven't looked for the King surname on later shipping lists so another to-do job on a wet day.