Genealogy Chat

On the 1871 census RG10/1091 Folio 82 p26 there is an Adelaide Krofft (I think it should be (actually I know) Krafft). She is shown as a boarder....dependent on parents... On the line below her is Caroline....servant, and in the same box, above the word servant is "adopted child" The head of the household is Joseph Burgess aged 71, living on income from bonds. According to BMD, in 1874 Adelaide Krafft married Joseph Burgess (not sure if it was the same one). In 1881 she is a widow.....Given that Adelaide was born 1847/8 and her father was still producing children in 1870 (according to the census)there is no reason for her to be adopted, would anyone like to surmise what was going on...?

Peter, The "dependent on parents" applies to the son above. I don't think it applies to her. Also, I think the adopted child applies to the cook as it's in her row and column. If she's a boarder she's paying money to stay there. Crista

Looks like she did marry the 75 year old Joseph because Arthur is listed as her stepson in 1881. Crista

But then have a look at 1891, when she appears to have married the son (in Croydon) and by 1901 she is a widow again in Racton, Sussex.

It does look like she married another Joseph Burgess. Can't see the marriage though. Looks like he's 56? Crista

In 1881 I think Joseph is also in Lambeth. He's listed as a pawn broker and married but his wife isn't there. Here's his death: Deaths Dec 1897 Burgess Joseph 63 Westbourne 2b 253 Crista

I still have aproblem with the stepson in 1881 - somewhere I'm missing something........... peter in nz

Peter, She married Joseph senior then Joseph junior. Crista

Thanks Crista - looks like I need her marriage certificate...can only find one date so far! You would think that, with a distinctive maiden name like Krafft the family would be easy to sort out (except for the spelling variants!!!!!). I am not even sure that Adelaide is related to me - I have a major problem between 1800 and 1856 in essex - so am trying to work all lines backwards to see if they meet. So much to do, so little time!! Am off to bed (10pm in New Zealand) so will look in the morning for the 100+ replies and all my problems solved..Peter (LOL)

there are 2 marriages of possible Burgess M Burgess for that time. Neither for Adelaide. Marriages Jun 1888 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Burgess Annie Pancras 1b 251 Burgess Joseph Pancras 1b 251 FARRELL Charles Pancras 1b 251 FRYER Louisa Pancras 1b 251 Marriages Mar 1891 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Burgess Georgiana Sheffield 9c 755 Burgess Joseph Sheffield 9c 755 Crump Sarah Ellen Sheffield 9c 755 Neal George Sheffield 9c 755

Peter, I might be wrong but that's the way it looks. Finding a death for Elizabeth might help prove it. This might be Joseph jr. JOSEPH THORNE BURGESS Birth: 20 MAY 1834 Christening: 03 OCT 1834 Old Church, Saint Pancras, London, England Parents: Father: JOSEPH BURGESS Family Mother: ELIZABETH Crista

Here's Arthur: ARTHUR AUGUSTUS BURGESS Birth: 26 JUL 1848 Christening: 01 NOV 1848 Old Church, Saint Pancras, London, England Parents: Father: JOSEPH BURGESS Family Mother: ELIZABETH Crista

Thanks for this - will now sit back and see where I need certs to confirm - this is fun!!!(Crista - don't you ever sleep????????). In 1901 she has two sons - I think I need to fit them into the picture. Peter

Hi Peter, The problem is, obtaining the birth certs for the 2 sons won't help because both of the fathers will be Joseph and you won't know which Joseph. Here's one of them: Name: Burgess, Harry Joseph T Record Type: Births Quarter: March Year: 1883 District: Brentford County: Middlesex Volume: 3a Page: 98 Crista

Here's the other: Name: Burgess, Joseph Arthur C Record Type: Births Quarter: September Year: 1878 District: Blean County: Kent Volume: 2a Page: 795 This might be his marriage: Name: Burgess, Joseph Arthur C Record Type: Marriages Quarter: December Year: 1901 District: Basingstoke County: Berkshire Hampshire Volume: 2c Page: 493 Crista

ahah..but if she is married to the 75 year old Joseph, who already has a son named Joseph, then she is hardly likely to name another son Joseph. Therefore Joseph is the son of the younger Joseph. (I enjoyed writing that!) Peter

At the risk of butting in on this conversation, I though that a woman is (or possibly was, it may have changed) not allowed to marry her husband's son. So if she married Joseph senior, she could not then marry Joseph junior (assuming I have understood this complicated story right, which at this time of night is questionable). Also, I would argue with the statement that if there was already one son called Joseph she would not call her son Joseph. Some families seem to do it all the time, but with a different middle name by which the child was actually known. Why can't life be more simple? Tina

To make it more confusing, on the 1901 census, Joseph Arthur is know as Arthur and Harry Joseph is known as Joseph. Could be she never actually married Joseph jr but they said they were on the census. Crista

There is a strong sugestion that there might of been some hanky panky going on. She marries Sr for what ever reson falls for Jr. After Sr departs this world, every one moves and she and Jr set up as Mr & Mrs ???

...and we mustn't forget Uncle Arthur - stepson in 1881, Husband Joseph's brother in 1891, Uncle 1902 (just found him on the next page of the 1891!) In 1891 the sons are Joseph A and Harry J. The plot thickens