Genealogy Forum UK

James Farrow was born (9th December 1827) and baptised two days later at the Union Workhouse in Nacton Suffolk to Mary Farrow. No father's name given.
Mary and James were discharged on 23rd January 1828.

January 16th 1831 Mary Farrow marries John Scarce in Little Glemham, Suffolk
July 31st 1831, Little Glemham sees a double baptism :
"Catherine, daughter of John Scarce and Mary (late Farrer)"
"James, son of Mary Farrer, born at Nacton"
The wedding and the baptisms were performed by different ministers, which I believe explains the spelling differences.

The 1841 census for Blaxhall shows James Scarce as a 12yo, born Nacton, described as the son of John and Mary Scarce - along with Catherine (10yo), born Blaxhall, and other siblings.

In 1850, James Farrow marries Amelia Jane Marham in Little Glemham, naming his father as John Scace.

I have not been able to uncover any other related information (bastardy bonds, indemnities, etc) in the indexes of the Suffolk Record Office at Ipswich.

How probable is it that John Scace/Scarce is the biological father of James ?

I fear that my paternal line stops here without further evidence - any ideas for further research or directions much appreciated.

Richard Farrow

fishface wrote:
January 16th 1831 Mary Farrow marries John Scarce in Little Glemham, Suffolk
July 31st 1831, Little Glemham sees a double baptism :
"Catherine, daughter of John Scarce and Mary (late Farrer)"
"James, son of Mary Farrer, born at Nacton"
The wedding and the baptisms were performed by different ministers, which I believe explains the spelling differences.

How probable is it that John Scace/Scarce is the biological father of James ?

I fear that my paternal line stops here without further evidence - any ideas for further research or directions much appreciated.

Richard Farrow

The fact that at the double baptism there is a distinction made between the parentage of the children to me suggests to me that they are using the opportunity as a form of informal adoption procedure. -

However have you considered trying to work out from the geography of the place how and when Mary and John might have met. As a single woman with a child how did she support herself after they left the workhouse? are there any references to poor relief in either village that might help?

One other point the 1841 census does not give actual relationships between people living in the same dwelling.

Hope some of this is new anad not just going over old ground for you.

Good Luck

Maths girl wrote:The fact that at the double baptism there is a distinction made between the parentage of the children to me suggests to me that they are using the opportunity as a form of informal adoption procedure. -

However have you considered trying to work out from the geography of the place how and when Mary and John might have met. As a single woman with a child how did she support herself after they left the workhouse? are there any references to poor relief in either village that might help?

One other point the 1841 census does not give actual relationships between people living in the same dwelling.

Hope some of this is new anad not just going over old ground for you.

Good Luck

Thanks for the reply. And yes you are right of course about the 1841 not giving relationships - in my mind I am swayed by the fact that James is recorded as Scace (his "Dad's" name) and not Farrow. As for your other queries .... her father and siblings lived in Blaxhall, very close to Little Glemham. The Scarce/Scace family were also in Blaxhall. My supposition is that she went home to her father and eventually met and married John Scarce. None of this strongly implies that he is the father of James. And I cannot find any supplemental evidence in Poor Law records held in Ipswich RO, which is the real disappointment. One for the backburner I think.
Thanks, Richard

hi fishface i dont no if this helps but for the staffordshire there are original copies of the bishop transcripts these may differ from the archive one as some time there are note put on the bishop transcripts that may note be on the ones at the archive

i think ive got that right linell or one of the others might explian it better ?

I have certainly found discrepancies between the Parish Records and the Bishop's Transcripts so that is certainly something worth following up

Yes I have found the same, Bishop Transcripts and PR's can hold different bits of information worth checking at the Archives. Happy hunting from Linell.

linell wrote:Yes I have found the same, Bishop Transcripts and PR's can hold different bits of information worth checking at the Archives. Happy hunting from Linell.

Thanks to all, an idea to work with. That'll keep my spirits up till I can travel to Ipswich RO again.
Much appreciated.
Richard

I this still a brickwall or do you still need help with it ?? Unless otherwise advised, this will be moved to Archive