Who was the father of Robert Plumpton?

[Tex T]

My thanks to MaryA and Hilary for their suggestions regarding “Blank for father's name on birth or marriage certificate?”, and specifically searching for a Bastardy or Affiliation/Filiation Bond (see this link below).

http://www.forum.liverpool-genealogy.or ... 16&t=12131

My problem now is I have two fathers for the same person!

One of my great great grandfathers was a Robert Plumpton, who I had not been particularly concentrating my researches on so far, but I believed he was the illegitimate son of an Elizabeth Plumpton living in Halewood. He was christened 8.4.1827 at St Mary’s Hale, and appears, I believe, in the 1841 census in Halewood as Robert Plumton (Piece 511, Book/Folio 7/31, Page 14) with his mother nearby as a Betty Plumpton (Piece 511, Book/Folio 7/17, Page 27). He also appears in the 1851 census (Piece 2194, Folio 112, Page 22) where his age indicates a birth in 1826/7.

I thought I had found Robert’s father’s name when I located his marriage on 28.12.1847 at St Mary’s Prescot, where his father was given as James Pearson. So, having read the above suggestions I decided to see if this James Pearson had been named as the father on a Bastardy or Affiliation/Filiation Bond. However, the search produced the following item in the Lancashire Quarter Sessions of 1826 (6.6.1826) entitled,

Halewood. Order of filiation and maintenance of Robert, bastard child of Peter Quick of Speke, labourer, and Elizabeth Plumpton, singlewoman

Obviously I will have to take a trip to Preston to see this document, but perhaps Robert was never told about this Peter Quick. A search for other children born illegitimately to an Elizabeth Plumpton shows several in the Halewood area born after Robert. This may be a different Elizabeth Plumpton, but if not, one of their fathers may have been James Pearson, and perhaps Robert assumed he was his father as well.

I have another mystery regarding Robert Plumpton. After the 1851 census he disappears from all records I have looked at so far, I cannot find him in any later census, nor can I find any record of another marriage or of his death. His wife, I believed, died in 1853 (buried at St Wilfrid, Farnworth, 1.11.1853) and in the 1861 census his daughter Martha (my great grandmother) is living with her maternal grandparents (Piece 2742, Folio 96, Page 24) who were next door neighbours in the 1851 census and are still in what appears to be the same house in 1861.

[MaryA]

Oh what a tangled web they liked to weave, love your story of two fathers

Hilary will be very pleased that these suggestions have again proved useful.

I hope there may be more information on the Bastardy Bond, perhaps an address for Elizabeth and that might resolve the matter if it matches what you may know.

I would encourage you to go to Preston, but don't forget your camera, you can order the document to be sent to you by post, but I can't remember how much it will cost.

Meanwhile looking for Robert after 1851.

[simone]

Hi Tex

wonder if this is him on National Archives


Plumpton, Robert
Official Number: 87582
Place of Birth: Wavertree, Lancashire
Date 26 May 1859
Catalogue reference ADM 188/92
Dept: Records of the Admiralty, Naval Forces, Royal Marines, Coastguard, and related bodies
Series: Admiralty: Royal Navy Registers of Seamen's Services
Piece 87201 - 87800
Image contains
1 document of many for this catalogue reference


£3.36 to view, not sure what it will tell you....
if it is him, may well explain why missing in 1861... gone sailing

Simone x

[simone]

I'm sure you have Martha's marriage but just posting it for the crew

Lancs opc
Marriage: 24 Dec 1866 St Wilfrid,
Farnworth-near-Prescot, Lancashire, England
Robert Timperley - 20 Stonemason Bachelor of Appleton
Martha Plumpton - 18 Spinster of Appleton
Groom's Father: David Timperley, Stone Mason
Bride's Father: Robert Plumpton, Labourer
Witness: John Timperley; Margaret Timperley
Married by Banns by: J. G. Barnsdale, Curate

[MaryA]

So far I have only discovered an entry in the Registers of the Parish of Hale for
08 Apr 1827 Robert (illegitimate) s. Elizabeth Plumpton of Halewood, single woman
which is what you already have.

Nice find Simone! born Wavertree could very well be baptised in Hale/Childwall

[Hilary]

Robert Plumpton born 1859 ( it's a date of birth on the record Simone found) is possibly the son of John and Mary Plumpton living in Much Woolton in 1871. He can't be the Robert son of Elizabeth as he was born in 1827. In 1861 John Mary and Robert are in Knotty Ash John born Halewood.

Could John who was born in Wavertree/Halewood be Elizabeth's sister?

[simone]

Hi Hilary

1859 is the date of the document, not the date of birth isn't it ?

[simone]

Sorry my internet been playing up, so couldn't post full answer

here is the link..


http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/docu ... Id=6832843


reads as date of document to me , i.e states image details, description, date, catologue ref

what do you think? my original post prob does read like date of birth, but do reckon it is date of document

Simone x

[Hilary]

I was going on the records of my great uncles whose documents are in the same series. This is one of them


Description
Name
Ambrose, Frank
Official Number:
SS4003
Place of Birth:
Saint Helens, Lancashire
Date
25 June 1894
Catalogue reference
ADM 188/109
Dept
Records of the Admiralty, Naval Forces, Royal Marines, Coastguard, and related bodies
Series
Admiralty: Royal Navy Registers of Seamen's Services
Piece
4001-5000
Image contains
1 document of many for this catalogue reference


The date is definitely Frank's birth date


There is another Robert Plumpton born 1858/9 who is with parents in 1861 in Knotty Ash, in Much Woolton in 1871 and at sea in 1881 listed as single aged 21 born Wavertree so I think this is the Robert Plumpton of the Naval Records he could be the other Robert's nephew.

[simone]

Ahh I see. Cheers Hilary. In work at the moment so can't look further.
See you later:)

[Tex T]

Thanks for all the replies and interest.

As suggested above, the John Plumpton in the 1861 census may be Robert’s (born ~1826) brother. There is a John with the Betty Plumpton in the 1841 census mentioned in my original post who is of the right age to be the one in 1861. I have looked for his christening but have only so far found one (on familysearch.org) of a John in 1837, but his mother is an Ellen Plumpton. This Ellen does appear to be living in Halewood, and she has three other children christened between 1835 and 1840, but it is not clear to me at which church these christening took place. Whether this is Elizabeth “in disguise” I don’t know, but none of these children seem to be in the 1841 census, or at least not with Betty Plumpton.

[MaryA]

I have looked for his christening but have only so far found one (on familysearch.org) of a John in 1837, but his mother is an Ellen Plumpton............... but it is not clear to me at which church these christening took place.

Oh dear, another one. We've had this sort of problem before. Probably the only thin you can do, apart from searching first hand the registers of nearby churches, is to drop an email to them and they should do a check and let you know. Not very satisfactory I know but a failing of theirs.

[Hilary]

The entry for John Plumpton son of Ellen Plumpton says Woolton is the baptism place. I imagine it would be the C of E in Wollton at the time. You need to check the batch number to find out exactly which church. I have to go out will look on my retrun.

[Hilary]

The film number leads you to the BTs for Hale on the Family Search catalogue

However the batch number doesn't agree with that on Hugh Wallis' site.

You'll need to check Hale registers.

[Tex T]

I have looked at the microfilms of St Mary Hale and St Peter Woolton this afternoon for the children of the above Ellen Plumpton. Three were christened at St Peter Woolton, the fourth, Ann, was I think christened at All Saints Childwall as indicated by familysearch. Strangely, although St Peter Woolton has a graveyard, the first two, who died young, appear to have been buried at St Mary Hale.

I have also looked at the 1841 census and now suspect that the above Ellen Plumpton and Elizabeth Plumpton were not the same person, as there is an Ellen Plumton in Much Woolton and in the same household there is an Ann Plumton aged 2 which would fit with the child christened at Childwall (born 31.10.1838). There is no John with this pair, but he may have died and been buried at a church I have yet to check. Unless he is the John with Betty Plumpton in the 1841 census?, maybe Ellen and Betty (Elizabeth) were sisters?

Anyway, less of this speculation, I should be concentrating on Robert Plumpton, the origin of this post. I will try to get to Preston sometime in the next few weeks to have a look at that Affiliation/Filiation Bond.

[MaryA]

I have a few burials for Ellen's children that took place at the Chapel of Hale, Childwall
08 Nov 1835 Mary d. Ellen Plumpton of Halewood aged 7 months
15 Jun 1837 Charles s. Ellen Plumpton of Halewood aged 2 weeks
31 May 1840 Jane d. Ellen Plumpton of Tarbock aged 9 days

and I have these two baptisms for Elizabeth
08 Apr 1827 Robert (illegitimate) s. Elizabeth Plumpton of Halewood, single woman which I know you knew about and
21 Aug 1842 born Jul 1842 Emily (illegitimate) d. Elizabeth Plumpton of Halewood, single woman

could this be daughter of the same Elizabeth?

[Tex T]

The household for Betty Plumpton in the 1841 census living in Naylor's Lane, Childwall, Halewood was,
Willm Layland, aged 50
Betty Plumpton, aged 30
Emily Plumpton, aged 2
John Plumpton, aged 4

There is a birth registered in the 4th quarter of 1838 of an Emila Plumpton in the West Derby registration district which could be the Emily in the 1841 census. So who is the Emily from the Hale parish register of 1842? It could perhaps be the same Emily being christened rather late and the register contains the wrong birth date, or perhaps the first Emily died shortly after the census and the mother gave her next child the same name. The problem with this second option is that there does not seem to be any record of the death of an Emily Plumpton in 1841/2. In fact there does not seem to be any further record of an Emily Plumpton born is 1838 or 1841 (census, marriage or death).

There is an Emily Plumpton in the 1851 census who seems too old (Piece 2182, Folio 325, Page 31), and with no place of birth recorded. In the 1861 census (Piece 2739, Folio 32, Page 25) I believe she is married to a George Grace, but in this census (and the 1871 census, Piece 3854, Folio 32, Page 24) her place of birth is given as Halewood. All three censuses put her birth to have been in 1832/3, so in the 1841 census she would have been 8 or 9, however there does not seem to be any sign of her in this census. So perhaps she is the 2 year old Emily with Betty in the 1841 census, and for subsequent censuses her age is wrong, although this would be a bit of a stretch for the 1851 census when it is claimed she is 18 while perhaps actually being 12.

On the subject of more (!) children for Elizabeth Plumpton, I found these two christenings,
1.8.1830 Marianne, illegitimate child of Elizabeth Plumpton of Halewood, christened at St Peter Woolton
3.11.1850 (born 24.5.1847) Henry, son of Elizabeth Plumpton of Halewood, single woman, christened at St Mary Hale
Henry is with his mother Elizabeth in the 1851 census (Piece 2193, Folio 55, Page 25), I believe she dies in the 4th quarter of 1853. In 1861 Henry is still with the same household, who I presume decided to look after him after his mother died (Piece 2739, Folio 32, Page 26).

[Tex T]

I went to Preston last week to look at the “order of filiation and maintenance” mentioned at the start of this post, and this proved very useful for a couple of reasons.

Firstly it mentioned that Robert Plumpton had been born within one month of the date of the order, which matches exactly with his age in both the 1841 and 1851 censuses. Previously I only had his baptism date, which it now transpires took place 11 months after his birth. (As mentioned in the original post, I cannot find him in later censuses.)

Secondly it was adjudicated, in Peter Quick’s presence, that he was the father of Robert. So I can now discount the James Pearson that Robert said was his father when he was married in 1857.

The charges applied to Peter Quick made interesting reading. He was charged one pound for Robert’s maintenance for the month since was born, and he was to pay two shillings per week thereafter. He also had to pay fifteen shillings to cover the cost of the apprehending and securing of himself to appear at the court and the costs of the court order. (Robert’s mother Elizabeth was also ordered to pay two shillings and six pence per week if she did not nurse and take care of Robert!)

[dickiesam]

the “order of filiation and maintenance”

Hi Tex,
The Order extracts you posted made a very interesting read, especially the part where the mother Elizabeth was to be charged for the care of her son, presumably if he was placed by the authorities with a third party as a 'nurse child'.

[MaryA]

Elizabeth was to be charged for the care of her son, presumably if he was placed by the authorities with a third party as a 'nurse child'.

I have come across this before and believe the important word is "IF". Presumably some sort of security just in case the child was taken into the care of others, rather than it actually has already happened.