Genealogy Chat

John CARTER m Elizabeth ROOTHAM 3 July 1877. He was 43 and she 'full age'. He was listed as a widow and she, a spinster. 1881 census shows John 48, Elizabeth 30, John R 17, Anne 15, Fanny 10, Minnie 8, Caroline 5, Sarah 1 and George 3 mths. All surnames CARTER. 1891 Census shows John 57, Elizabeth 41, John R 27, Minnie ROOTHAM Stepdaughter 18, Caroline ROOTHAM 15, Sarah 11, George 10, William H 8, Martha 6, Alice Ann 5 and Walter 4. (Ok! So they were VERY busy and probably VERY catholic!) Question: Why did Caroline and Minnie's surname change from Carter in 1881 to Rootham in 1891? I thought I had it cracked and went down the track that Elizabeth was previously married to a Rootham but the recently acquired marriage cert to John dispells that with the 'Spinster' status. The two girls have not married into the Rootham family as Caroline married in 1900 to either a Pettit or Morris and Minnie did marry but I don't know who to (yet!). All help gratefully recieved. Sonja

Hi Sonja, Have you considered that they may be adopted children or relations taken into the family...I've known cases where these have been referred to as "step" children. Emma.

Perhaps they are the children from her prevous relantionship Or his previous wife could have also been a widow.Looking at their ages and the marriage joh and Elizabeth would not have been married when they were born

Could be children of a deceased brother of Elizabeth adopted into the family? - not mentioned in the earlier census?

Sonja, On Freebmd there is a marriage record for: Caroline Rootham, Huntingdon, 3b 624, Dec qtr 1895. Possibly your Caroline? If so I would consider obtaining her marriage certificate and clarifying her Father's name. Emma.

I would think that John, Anne and Fanny were his, Minnie and Caroline were hers, and Sarah and George were theirs. Perhaps in the 1881 Minnie and Caroline were too young to realise they had a different surname from their siblings, but by 1891 were old enough to understand, and want their real names used. Jan.

Thanks for your replies. Jan, I thought what you thought but Elizabeth is listed as a spinster and he as a Widower so, Yes, John R is his as is Anne, Fanny and Jane (my gggran who was married then), but for this to be Elizabeths first marraige, there shouldn't be any children from a previous. Unless..... she was a bit wicked and had a trial run at the childbearing stuff! Yes Emma, That is 'my Caroline'! She married Mathew Lambert. I didn't think of a deceased brother of Elizabeth. I might have to wander down that track or, like you say, get a marriage cert for her and go from there. Sonja

Hi Sonya, Don't read too much into the 'spinster' status. I have one 'spinster' who was definitely previously married. I have both the marriage certs! Debbie