A 9 Year Old Son-In-Law??

[rainbowdragon]

I have a couple in my family tree, James and Fanny Bevington living in Bromsgrove. In the 1891 census an Eli Clyde (9) is living with the family, listed as their son-in-law. However, a few of James and Fanny's children have "Clyde" as a second name and an Eli Clyde Bevington is found in the birth indexes around in 1882. I haven't found an Eli Clyde born around that time.

Having first gotten the information on the son-in-law bit from a family tree I just assumed that that person had been mistaken and put Eli Clyde Bevington down as one of James and Fanny's children, making them seven. However, in the 1911 census I've discovered they only had six children and, having finally found the 1891 census entry (it was mistranscribed on Ancestry as Burington) I've discovered that, indeed, Eli Clyde is listed as a son-in-law and, perhaps, without the Bevington surname (tyhe "ditto" makes could indicate Clyde but could also include Bevington). Any ideas, people?

[Lindsay]

Stepson?

[rainbowdragon]

Stepson?

He was born after the marriage of James and Fanny. And if he was a stepson I would have thought his surname would have been Amphlett (Fanny's maiden name).

[rainbowdragon]

Hmmm, looking at the 1891 census entry again I'm thinking that what they transcribed as "Davis" looks like instead "Dennis". There's no census of the family with both Davis and Dennis, Davis never appears on any other census, and I cannot find any birth in the index on Ancestry with Davis Bevington. Dennis does, however, appear on several other censuses. The births listed in the censuses are close enough that they could be the same person.

If that's so then, with Eli, we've got the right number of children. It still doesn't explain the "son-in-law" bit though. :(

[Rosie Knees]

I have a listing for a child 'son in law' and he is, indeed, stepson.

Rainbowdragon, I wonder if Eli could have been taken in by James and Fanny from another branch of the family, or even adopted?

[rainbowdragon]

I have a listing for a child 'son in law' and he is, indeed, stepson.

Rainbowdragon, I wonder if Eli could have been taken in by James and Fanny from another branch of the family, or even adopted?

An adoption could explain why there are six children listed in 1911: I've had another look at the "Davis" name and I'm pretty sure it's Dennis. Despite the fact that this isn't my direct line I'm thinking I'll have to get the birth certificate eventually to clear this up.

[Joan of Archives]

I agree "son-in-law" for all of mine have meant stepson.

Was James married previously? Is it possible that Eli was a child from a previous marriage, or a previous wife's son?

[Rosie Knees]

Joan, Eli was born the year after Minnie who is listed as daughter. I think you will have to get the cert to be sure rainbow.

hmm, wondering now if little Eli was the result of an affair and James was good enough to take him as his own?

You could put up a plea to ask if there is sks in Worcs who might look at the register for you.

[Nell]

Just to reiterate, "son-in-law" was used as stepson. Jane Austen's novels are full of mothers-in-law who were stepmothers etc.

[rainbowdragon]

Was James married previously? Is it possible that Eli was a child from a previous marriage, or a previous wife's son?

No, James had never been married before. Neither had Fanny, for that matter. The "affair" idea seems possible. I'll definitely get the birth certificate once I have some spare cash.

Thanks for all the help and advice guys. :)

[rainbowdragon]

Just as an aside, I'm learning a lot about checking for myself and not just accepting things (and transcriptions). And I'm getting amazed at people who just blindly accept things.

Like Eli Clyde Bevington. In one census he's listed as that and as the son-in-law. And so, on someone's family tree they put him as the husband of Minnie Clyde Bevington, despite the fact that he was only nine years old in that census and Minnie Clyde was only two years older!

[kiterunner]

It could just be a mistake, of course. (The "son in law" bit on the census, I mean)

[rainbowdragon]

It could just be a mistake, of course. (The "son in law" bit on the census, I mean)

Also possible. I should make sure though.