Genealogy Chat

How about this? Sarah Jane ''killed'' her child through neglect and was sentenced to a year's hard labour. Ordinary people are going to call this ''Murder'' even though this was not what she was conficted of. We are saying she killed five children (or rather, Arthur Allott's parent's killed five children) yet Arthur lived........ I think if it turns out Sarah Jane Allott is the ''murderess'' it's most likely she only had five children.........If everyone hated her, how much would it take to get from, ''That woman killed her child'' to ''That woman killed her children'' and with the knowledge that she had five children, ''that woman killed five children'', then get her hubby involved, ''those people murdered their five children''. I think the fact that Sarah Jane Allott came from the exact place you mentioned and did have a son called Arthur may mean this is the right family. BUT YOU NEED ARTHUR'S MARRIAGE CERT to begin the proof, or otherwise! Merry

HI Angela The name of the child that was in the Times was Harriett and here is a birth that could be her Name: Allott, Harriet Record Type: Births Quarter: September Year: 1880 District: Bradford County: West Riding of Yorkshire Volume: 9b Page: 242 And then a death entry it would have been a laete entry as they would have been checks on the assumption of murder or manslaughter as it was stated Name: Allott, Harriet Record Type: Deaths Age at death: 0 Quarter: December Year: 1880 District: Bradford County: West Riding of Yorkshire Volume: 9b Page: 151 Your could try contacting Bradford Reg Office to see if parents were William nd Sarah once that marriage confirms that William was Arthurs dad. Wendy

Merry - great minds think alike! (You just posted before me, that's all!) I went to the library and pored through my favourite murder book. Spookily, the only child murderer to come up with this surname was Beverley Allitt, the nurse who murdered (five?) children in her care. How spooky is that? I am almost tempted to do Beverley Allitt's family tree...... In the same book, I read: (;paraphrased) Child murder was easy in Victorian times. It was not necessary to register the death. The Law was widely misunderstood and many people, including members of the Clergy, thought that a Doctor's Certificate of Cause of Death was sufficient to effect a burial. Of the murders which WERE detected, this was rarely as the result of a Doctor's observations. By far and away the murders were detected by a vigilant UNDERTAKER who would take his suspicions to the Coroner. There was often a monetary reward for this, particularly where an Insurance benefit was due. My point here is that an Undertaker would not have been fooled by the cause of death being teething, if the child had obviously burnt to death! Of course, they may not have used an Undertaker, but even so... Could you not get in touch with the cousin of the cousin and ask him where this story comes from? If the old man never talked about his family, then who did? Personally, I think the fact of your mother going to prison for a year for wilful neglect leading to death, would be enough to make anyone clam up about their family, certainly in those days. Olde Crone

Olde Crone - could you post the title of your favourite murder book? Sounds just like my type of bedtime reading!! Merry