Friday, March 1, 2013

So Much In Common



The mail brought with it a bunch of BMD certificates, and some or much information with each. Of this I have followed up a little, and I am digesting the rest. In the last post, I wrote about John Beresford and the possibility that he was born at the Union Workhouse in Durham. I now have in hand, the birth and marriage certificates reported by Duncan Brown (which, of course, he reported accurately). And I don't have any more to add.

To summarize, if the John Berresford, born to Elizabeth at the Union Workhouse Crossgate, Durham is our John Beresford, then the father given on his marriage certificate is unlikely to be his biological father. This father may be a convenient fiction to avoid the stigma of illegitimacy, or he may be a relative of his mother's. The added "r" on the birth certificate is not a problem, since I notice that Elizabeth was unable to sign her name, and therefore had no idea if the registrar had spelled it correctly or not. I don't have any sense as to the plausibilty of an illiterate Elizabeth, related to an Attorney's Clerk John, but then they may not be siblings, Besides, Victorian gender roles and passage of time might well allow for a young woman to be illiterate in 1845, but her brother a clerk by the 1860s or 70s.

Another birth certificate I had requested was that of Roger Fannan, who, I think, might be Roger Fannon Byrne, father of Minnie "Marion" Mary Frances Byrne and father-in-law of Vivian Kennett Tilley. Here is the transcript (BMD Birth Index: Roger Fannan Mar1861 Barton 8c 460). The is no entry for father or father's occupation.

Twenty Second                                                 X The Mark of
February                                         Jane          Jane Fannan          Twenty second
1861                       Roger  Boy [  ] Fannan [  ] Mother                   March
Union Workhouse                                             Timothy Street       1861
Patricroft                                                           Eccles

Workhouse regimes were harsh to discourage people from taking advantage of them. Even the architecture was reminiscent of a prison, although people were free to leave if they would rather find bed and food elsewhere. The exchange between Ebenezer Scrooge and the gentlemen collecting for charity illustrates something of workhouse philosophy. On being asked for a contribution, the conversation goes:

     "Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

     "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

     "And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

     "They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

     "The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

     "Both very busy, sir."

     "Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it… I help to support the establishments I have mentioned--they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

     "Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

     "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
    
On the other hand, medical care was available at the workhouse, even though it was disturbing to the authorities that the working poor had less medical provision than the workhouse poor. A month after the delivery, Elizabeth registered the birth, as resident at Timothy Street. She may have merely checked herself into the workhouse for whatever medical care was available, and then checked herself out shortly afterwards.

I browsed the 1861 England Census for Timothy Street, Eccles and found this entry:
     Sarah Kelly        Head   Widow  60  Housekeeper           Ireland
     Catherine Kelly  Daur     Un       23  Bobbin [...] Cotton   Ireland
     Catherine Kelly  Visitor   Un       22   Serv                       Ireland
     Jane Fanner       Lodger  Un      26   Charwoman            Ireland
     Rodger Fanner   Lodger  Un      2 mos                            Lancashire, Patricroft



The ancestry transcript has Farmer, but it looks like Fanner to me. The census was taken 7 April, a couple of weeks after the birth registration of the workhouse Roger Fannan, who would have been a little over 7 weeks old - so 2 months is reasonable as an age at census. How many unmarried Janes with infant Rogers could there be associated with Eccles, let alone Timothy Street? The Ebenezer Scrooges of the world may have believed there could be hundreds! But a search of the BMD Birth Index for first name Roger/Rodger and last name Fannan/Fannon/Fanner/Farmer in Lancashire for 1861 returns only Roger Fannan from the workhouse.

I am very sure that this Jane and Rodger Fanner in the 1861 Census are the Jane and Roger Fannan of the birth certificate. And that this Roger/Rodger is the 10-year-old boarder Roger Fannan of the 1871 Census (see Ageing Backwards), also born in Patricroft at the same time. And the Fannan-Byrne connection there seems too much of a coincidence for this not to be Roger Fannon Byrne, although I am much less certain of this. So far an 1881 Census return with Roger Fannan/Fannon Byrne has elluded me.


Surprisingly, there are few Jane Fannan/Fannons. The BMD Death Index has a couple of possibilities:

First, Jane Fannon Sep1863 Manchester 8d 227. This is before ages were added, so I'd have to order the certificate to find out if this is even a possible record relating to Jane Fannan/Fanner/Fannon.

Second, Jane Fannan Sep1903 Barton 8c 418 Age: 63, of the right age to be the Jane Fanner of the 1861 Census and closer to "home" than the first. I had hoped a search for her in Barton would yield some intermediate census returns, but no such luck.

Which, if either, of these turns out to be a record of Roger's mother, I don't want to pay for at this point. The 1863 death certificate might have a Timothy Street address, or a Byrne informant, but probably has neither, and may not even have the right age! By 1903, I don't expect to find any conclusive connection between the decedent and Roger Fannon Byrne.

On his marriage certificate, Roger Fannon Byrne reports his father as John Byrne, Labourer. As with John Beresford Attorney's Clerk, this may be a fictional or an adoptive father. And whereas it is unlikely that a John Beresford fathered a child with an Elizabeth Berresford, in Roger's case, it is possible that John Byrne could be the biological father his mother didn't report at the time of the birth. What connection John Byrne had with the Margaret Byrne of the 1871 census is anyone's guess.

If John Beresford and Roger Fannon Byrne were both born in workhouses to unwed mothers, then each side of the Tilley/Byrne marriage had that in common. It was not the sort of thing people talked about, so they may not even have known it about each other!

No comments:

Post a Comment