My Grandma's illegitimate child

Logic decrees that the twin theory must be correct.

What an eventful life Grandma had, but mostly bad events by the look of it. Her twin brother dies in months, her youngest sister was an imbecile and then she got raped by a toff. After that it picked up when she married into a life promising unrelenting grinding poverty, a beloved son to die from diphtheria and a relatively early death herself. Ah well, mustn't grumble.

 

Looks like the twin phenomenon struck again in 1886 with Frederick and Henry Garrard. Comments anyone? Just more bad luck?



Hmm, these 2 have different page numbers. What does it all mean?

If all these are correct then Agnes Hannah gave birth 11 times. That's a lot.

 

Frederick could be the last one listed on page 1055 and Henry the first on page 1056.

Have you looked for their baptisms?

 

They were both baptised on 8 May 1888 at St. Nicholas, Deptford. The baptism register has Twins written across both entries.

 

The GRO records their deaths a couple of years later. My guess is that they were born with disabilities. Sad.

GARRARD, FREDERICK Age 1
GRO Reference: 1888 J Quarter in GREENWICH Volume 01D Page 541
GARRARD, HENRY Age 1
GRO Reference: 1888 J Quarter in GREENWICH Volume 01D Page 543

 

I agree that this is Charles Walter, born to George E and Agnes Hannah in Woolwich in 1871 and that he's a widower at this point. The "nephew" William could be a child of one of his siblings. If this William is Agnes Sarah's illegitimate son then he would have been born around 1897 at which time she was 23.

The family of George E & Agnes Hannah seems to have travelled back and forth between Ipswich and London a couple of times. I'll see if I can eliminate the children of Charles Walter's other siblings.

 

The family of George Edward Garrard and Agnes Hannah moved back and forth between Ipswich and London. If I can track their locations and Agnes Sarah's then I'll know where Agnes Sarah's illegitimate child William was born. In theory.

1866 - 1869 Ipswich - placed by by marriage reg. & birth reg.s for Catherine Gertrude Mary & Willam Edward
1870 - ?
1871 - London - Placed by 1871 census & birth reg. for Edward Walter
1872-1873 - ?
1874 - Ipswich - Placed by birth reg.s for George Arthur & Agnes Sarah
1875 - ? (Sarah Agnes aged 1)
1876 - Ipswich - placed by birth reg. for George Edgar (Sarah Agnes aged 2)
1877 - 1878 ? (Sarah Agnes aged 3-4)
1879 - Ipswich - placed by birth reg. for John James (Sarah Agnes aged 5)
1880 - ? (Sarah Agnes aged 6)
1881 - Ipswich - placed by 1881 census and birth reg. for Emily May (Sarah Agnes aged 7)
1882 - ? (Sarah Agnes aged 8)
1883 - Ipswich - placed by birth reg. for Alice Martha (Sarah Agnes aged 9)
1884 - 1885 ? (Sarah Agnes aged 10-11)
1886 - London - placed by birth reg.s for Frederick & Henry (Sarah Agnes aged 12)
1887 - ? (Sarah Agnes aged 13)
1888 - London - placed by death reg.s for Frederick & Henry (Sarah Agnes aged 14)
1889 - 1890 ? (Sarah Agnes aged 15-16)
1891 - London - parents and Sarah Agnes now in London placed by 1891 census (Sarah Agnes aged 17)
1892 and years after - I can find no evidence that Sarah Agnes and her parents ever returned to Ipswich (Sarah Agnes aged 18 and up)

So the pattern looks like Ipswich-London-Ipswich-London.
What is the youngest that Sarah Agnes is likely to have started working?
I'm trying to work out where she was when the rape by the employer took place.

I can place the family (and her presumably) in London by the time she was 12 by the births of Frederick & Henry in 1886. I don't think she would have worked before the age of 12. This means that the rape must have occured in London and that the narrative, that she was raped in Ipswich can't be right.

If this is true then William would have been born in London, not Ipswich.

Can anyone see any big (or small) errors here. Thanks for any help.

 

Unfortunately in my Hawes family tree we have lots of Hannah's but none marrying a Garrard. It doesnt mean there isnt a connection as Hawes is a very popukar Norfolk/Suffolk name and the branches spread far and wide. I will keep digging

 

Thanks for your help

 

I don't know if Charles is using "nephew" in the strict sense or simply as "a relative".

First I'll assume he's being vague about the term nephew -

The only contenders I can find for this William "the nephew" are these 2 births from the GRO. They have the right name, the right place of birth and year of birth is only out by 1.

GARRARD, WILLIAM GEORGE EDWARD POLLARD
GRO Reference: 1896 D Quarter in IPSWICH Volume 04A Page 915
GARRARD, WILLIAM EDWARD POTTER
GRO Reference: 1896 S Quarter in IPSWICH Volume 04A Page 877

The question is who are they?

The MMN Pollard William could well be a child of EMMA POLLARD who married FREDERICK GARRARD in Quarter 1 of 1891 in Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Looking at the 1901 census for this family I can see no trace of any of them. It's possible that EMMA died

Death
GARRARD, EMMA HETTIE 41
GRO Reference: 1896 D Quarter in IPSWICH Volume 04A Page 504

maybe giving birth to this William in 1896 or shortly after, I can't trace father or son after this.

So this William could be a contender, except I haven't established a blood relaltionship between the Frederick Garrard in Bury St Edmonds and the Charles Garrard in the 1911 census.

The MMN Potter William could well be the child of AMY LOUISA POTTER who married WILLIAM EPHRAIM GARRARD in Quarter 2 of 1896 in Ipswich, Suffolk. Looking at the 1901 census for this family they are still together William 30, Amy 26, William 4 with a new son Charles 2. Looking at the 1911 census for this family I can see no trace of any of them. It's possible that WILLIAM EPHRAIM GARRARD died

Death
GARRARD, WILLIAM 36
GRO Reference: 1908 M Quarter in IPSWICH Volume 04A Page 634

leaving Amy, William and Charles to fend for themselves.

So this William could be a contender, except again I haven't established a blood relaltionship between the William Ephraim Garrard in Ipswich and the Charles Garrard in the 1911 census.

Now I'll assume Charles is being precise in his use of the term nephew. None of his siblings registered the birth of a child called William in Ipswich in the years around 1897. So it's not one of his nephews (unless it's the illegitimate son of Agnes Sarah, which is possible) but it could be a nephew of his deceased wife who has taken the surname Garrard (although I can't see why he would do this).

 

I don't have my bits of paper to hand but I did have a look at the William Edward son of William Ephraim Garrard and Amy Potter. William Ephraim b 1871 Ipswich was I think the son of William John Garrard b 1848 Kings Lynn Norfolk and Agnes Emma Kerridge. William Ephraim is with maternal grandparents in 1881 and 91.
I haven't been able to spot a relationship (so far anyway) with William Ephraim to your family or with his father William John to your family.

In 1911 Amy Garrand(note spelling) is in Ipswich , head of household with 3 sons, but not William Edward.

 

Also I think from later census details that the 1891 marriage of Frederick Garrard in Bury st Ed. was to Lucy Jacob and that Emma Pollard married George Reach.
In which case there are a different set of parents for William George Edward Garrard mmn Pollard b Ipswich 1896....

 

Thanks for your comments, particulary re: Amy Garrand. How on Earth did you find that record?

I've decided to buy the birth certs for

GARRARD, WILLIAM GEORGE EDWARD POLLARD
GRO Reference: 1896 D Quarter in IPSWICH Volume 04A Page 915
GARRARD, WILLIAM EDWARD POTTER
GRO Reference: 1896 S Quarter in IPSWICH Volume 04A Page 877

It might cast some light. I'll post the info when they turn up.

 

Ah, it's ok. I assume you used wildcards and searched for surname Garr???

 

Sorry just picking up now. I think I may have put in Amy b 1874 - 1876
Rushmere Suffolk into Family Search and up she came....

 

It may not help but there is a death in Bedford in 1972 of a William George E Garrard b sep 1896.