Another "out-of-wedlock" story
There's been no breakthrough so far in finding the birth record of my 2x great-grandmother Emma Shelley (see last week’s Illegitimacy & Mystery). The idea that she may have been born before her parents married proved to be a false dawn when the PDF of the birth certificate I ordered for an Emma born to an unmarried mother called Holland (my 3x great-grandmother’s maiden name) became available to view.
The mother of this Emma Holland was an Ann, not an Elizabeth or Bessie. Currently, the only two Ann Hollands on my tree are either too old or too young to be this person, though she may be a relative. I’ll need to dig further to confirm.
Married? Not married?
Oddly, though, I found Ann and her daughter Emma two years later on the 1841 census apparently married to James with several other children, so it seems strange that she was recorded as being unmarried. Was there another Ann Holland with a daughter Emma in the same area? Was it a transcription error? A recording error? Further investigation needed!
But that’s for another day and I shall instead turn to this week's wedding anniversary on 29th November 1896, of my great-grandparents pictured below - Jane Hick and, the subject of last week’s blog post, Emma’s illegitimate son, George Shelley. It's possible these photographs were taken at the time of their marriage.
When I researched Jane years ago it took a while to track down her birth details because, coincidentally, she was also born illegitimate and registered under her mother’s surname, Williams.
Her mother, Eleanor, married James Hick a few months after Jane was born and Jane subsequently took his surname. Unlike Emma’s spouse (see last week’s blog post), Eleanor’s new husband was clearly happy to take on his new wife's baby daughter. Though I’ve often wondered if James was actually Jane’s biological father, as the 1861 census, taken when Jane was 2 months old, shows he was the lodger. Perhaps one day DNA might confirm the story!