Leeds in the 1870s

Si · Post by Si » Sat 12 Jun, 2010 11:18 am

barlickgirl wrote: My Dad always says that they'd be horrified at us even speculating about them and that we already know more about them 90 years after there death, than he was ever told. They believed that children should be seen and not heard and if he's asked questions, he's have been ignored, or had his ear clipped!!!! Sounds typical Leeds! My family (some of whom were coal miners) moved en masse from Shelf (between Halifax and Bradford) to Hunslet (south Leeds) in the 1870s. I assume for work.

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Sat 12 Jun, 2010 3:14 pm

I know, I have this nagging little thought that when I hit the pearly gates that Sarah will be standing outside them waiting for me with a steely look on her face.......I've got my cousin Nancy visiting and she brought lots of pictures and other things and she said she's feeling her mom nudging her to follow some more clues. She'll wake up in the middle of the night and think about one of the boxes of her mother's things and when she goes looking the next day, there's another picture or document. So I'm thinking that perhaps all of them, including Sarah are trying to send us "clues" to put together the picture of their lifves. That's a happier thought than of running into a ticked off Sarah in the afterlife......But the really cool thing is that in about 2 weeks I'll be back in the mother state - South Dakota - and will be going up to Clear Lake and one of the things that I will be doing is going to the cemetery and putting flowers on Henry and Sarah's graves.

Post by **cnosni** » Sat 12 Jun, 2010 6:13 pm

Unmarried couple, at that time,are far more common than what we would think.We tend to view the Victorian period as one with strict moral and social codes and values.In truth the lower classes aspired to these morals,but,in an age of no divorce (unless you were rich) then the only way of moving from one relationship to another is to either bigamously marrry or to simply shack up and either pretend to have been married (the moving about helped with tis facade) or to be just completely blatant.Two sets of my great great grandparents did not marry,one pair were living together in 1871 as head of household and lodger and by the 1881/1891/1901 census sharing the same surname and as being husband and wife,but they never married.This pair of ancestors had both been married before,one i have a death for their first spouse but not for the other,as to what happened to their spouse i do not know.They therefore must have felt that they did not want to break the law by bigamously marrying and they must have been in a postion not to be able to afford a divorce.So perhaps they just moved house to get away from the tounge wagging and then eventually they moved from Scarborough to Leeds.However there is an article by a Victorian parish priest in Leeds who remarks at theshameful number of couples cohabiting as man and wife but have not married,you know the sort of thing,fire and brimstone,collapse of society etc etc.

barlickgirl · Post by **barlickgirl** » Sat 12 Jun, 2010 11:28 pm

In truth the lower classes aspired to these morals,but,in an age of no divorce (unless you were rich) then the only way of moving from one relationship to another is to either bigamously marrry or to simply shack up and either pretend to have been married (the moving about helped with tis facade) or to be just completely blatant.So perhaps they just moved house to get away from the tounge wagging and then eventually they moved from Scarborough to Leeds.Yes good point Cnosni. Interestingly James married Martha when he was 27 years old, she was just 18. I've often wondered whether he might have been married previously, but there's no sign of it. Mostly our Wells family married at 20 years or younger. James is with his Mum in the 1871 census the year he married Martha though and listed as unmarried.I can't help thinking there's a story with these two! i just noticed on the 1871 census a Mary Collinson was listed as a Grocer and widow living in the same street. A Mary Collinson was also a witness at James and Martha's wedding along with her brother James Coultas. Why would you import Bradforians to Leeds to witness a wedding from Glebe St. when you and your family and your witnesses all actually live in Rooley Lane Bradford? So many questions!

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Sun 13 Jun, 2010 4:36 am

How interesting. Barlick Girl and I have begun pursuing one of James and Henry's brother's, William Wells, who we have thought might be a bigamist with a second family in Scotland. In one of the census', William's wife and children are living with his mother Betty, and the wife's status is shown as married, but there is no William to be seen. Then we pick up who we think is the same William in Scotland with a second family and if our surmises are correct, he has been a very bad boy. Oh the intrigue.......

Post by **cnosni** » Sun 13 Jun, 2010 11:57 am

Dakota wrote: How interesting. Barlick Girl and I have begun pursuing one of James and Henry's brother's, William Wells, who we have thought might be a bigamist with a second family in Scotland. In one of the census', William's wife and children are living with his mother Betty, and the wife's status is shown as married, but there is no William to be seen. Then we pick up who we think is the same William in Scotland with a second family and if our surmises are correct, he has been a very bad boy. Oh the intrigue....... I have got two bigamists that appear in my tree (not descended from them!!)and one of them is so unbelievably "at it" that ists beyond belief.

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Sun 13 Jun, 2010 3:08 pm

I'm just thankful we have such interesting ancestors. I like the occassional horsethief or bigamist in the bunch.

Post by **chameleon** » Sun 13 Jun, 2010 7:08 pm

cnosni wrote: Dakota wrote: How interesting. Barlick Girl and I have begun pursuing one of James and Henry's brother's, William Wells, who we have thought might be a bigamist with a second family in Scotland. In one of the census', William's wife and children are living with his mother Betty, and the wife's status is shown as married, but there is no William to be seen. Then we pick up who we think is the same William in Scotland with a second family and if our surmises are correct, he has been a very bad boy. Oh the intrigue....... I have got two bigamists that appear in my tree (not descended from them!!)and one of them is so unbelievably "at it" that ists beyond belief. Nobody would ever suggest you could be thought of as a person 'of doubtful parentage' old bean

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Sun 13 Jun, 2010 10:53 pm

My Great Gran 'fell wrong' to a norwegian sailor. The shame meant she had the baby and immediately emigrated to the States. Ended up being a buyer for Macy's. Grandad was brought up buy his grandparents. Other side of the family had a divorce, scandalous at the times.

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Mon 14 Jun, 2010 12:02 am

Those norweigans are a tricky bunchy. Henry and Sarah's daughter, Jessie, married one and they had 4 chldren, one of which was my dad. But when all of the Norweigan brothers would come to town and get together, Grandma Jessie would take the youngest daughter and go to a hotel so as not to expose her to them wild and crazy norweigans when they were tossing a few back.