war pensions.

[clyde miles]

hope i've posted this in the right place, having recently search my great uncles pension on ancestry. it states the pension records are from 1914 until 1923. is it possible updates and additions were made to these cards after the fact? any help will be much appreciated.

[PRC]

Hi @clyde miles and welcome to the forum.

4 minutes ago, clyde miles said:

it states the pension records are from 1914 until 1923. is it possible updates and additions were made to these cards after the fact?

Not quite sure what the "fact" is that you're referring to .

The various Ministry of Pensions cards rescued by the Western Front Association and now available as transcripts on Ancestry and viewable images on Fold3, quite frequently go into the 1920's. Although payments of pensions continued, the updating of the different cards as a way to manage the claim fell into disuse as the decade went on. Also in cases where the disability was low or disappearing, there was a tendency to offer a one off gratuity to settle the claim from the mid-1920's onwards. In the cases of widows their claims also ended as they started to re-marry \ die, while for children the pension was awarded to the age of 16 except in exceptional circumstances.  Again the passage of time would steadily reduce the number of eligible children until by the mid-1930's they had all gone. Ancestry appear to have arbitrarily decided they go up to 1923 in their description of the pension ledger and index cards record sets.

What are sometimes described as pension records are a different thing. Hopefully you are aware that the majority of other ranks service records went up in flames in WW2 when German bombs hit the London warehouse were they were being stored. In an attempt to at least partially rebuild the lost records, copies were taken of any paperwork that had been extracted from the service records to help with ongoing pension claims and medical service support for the Great War veterans. Thus bits and pieces can slip in from later on, including medical reviews of pension entitlements and references to inpatient treatment in the twenties and thirties.

If you do have a specific query about any pension card for your great uncle please shout as there are some great experts on the forum in that area.

Hope that helps,
Peter

[clyde miles]

sorry peter, the 'fact' meaning after, yes  i have big query about my great uncle john cyphus pension, but its a long story. very best regards and thank you for all the information and help.

 

[PRC]

9 hours ago, clyde miles said:

sorry peter, the 'fact' meaning after, yes  i have big query about my great uncle john cyphus pension, but its a long story. very best regards and thank you for all the information and help.

 

No worries, lots of pension card expertise on the forum, so if you care to share then hoepfully your query can be resolved.

Cheers,
Peter

[ss002d6252]

9 hours ago, clyde miles said:

sorry peter, the 'fact' meaning after, yes  i have big query about my great uncle john cyphus pension, but its a long story. very best regards and thank you for all the information and help.

 

Ask away and we'll see what we can do.

Crig

[ss002d6252]

Presumably it is #11580 John Cyphus - he has an interesting set of pension cards.

Craig

[clyde miles]

hi craig,

yes 11580 john cyphus. the second dependant on his pension card is a' miss ethyl marie peach'. she was born in 1910  after an affair he had with a married woman. on one of the cards it say she has married and is now 'mrs ethyl marie wyatt'. what i  find difficult is that the only marriage i can find between a 'wyatt' and a 'peach' took place in early 1923. making her 12yrs old, could this really be possible.

[ss002d6252]

12 minutes ago, clyde miles said:

hi craig,

yes 11580 john cyphus. the second dependant on his pension card is a' miss ethyl marie peach'. she was born in 1910  after an affair he had with a married woman. on one of the cards it say she has married and is now 'mrs ethyl marie wyatt'. what i  find difficult is that the only marriage i can find between a 'wyatt' and a 'peach' took place in early 1923. making her 12yrs old, could this really be possible.

The information is as good as that given to the MoP and the clerk copying it down.

For others looking, the marriage is

The 1910 birth looks to be Ethel Marie whereas the pension card is Ethel May or Mary.





Craig

[PRC]

Just a thought, but as the dependants allowance would have ended when the young Ethel Marie \ Mary reached 16, (although I believe it could go on a little bit longer in certain circumstances), it seems unlikely that a change of name on her marriage would have been recorded on the pension card - unless she married on the day of her 16th birthday!

Is it not more likely that the married woman who had the affair remarried a Mr Wyatt and her daughter took her new husbands surname?

Unfortunately I don't have subscription access to be able to see the wording to get a better understanding of whether it might be more applicable to the "guardian" or the daughter.

Cheers,
Peter

[ss002d6252]

1 hour ago, PRC said:

Is it not more likely that the married woman who had the affair remarried a Mr Wyatt and her daughter took her new husbands surname?

Yes, I suspect that the name on the card may well the name of the guardian, rather than the child. The card is not written as it would usually be but there are few situations where the details past age 16 would be needed. @PRC

Notice the use of the term 'remarried - now Mrs Wyatt' - if she was Peach by birth there would be no need to mention the re-marriage.

https://www.fold3.com/image/691245754?terms=cyphus,11580


Craig

[ss002d6252]

Also notice the wording of the card in this case.
https://www.fold3.com/image/691814946?terms=cyphus,11580



Craig

[PRC]

On 16/12/2021 at 11:18, clyde miles said:

the second dependant on his pension card is a' miss ethyl marie peach'. she was born in 1910  after an affair he had with a married woman.

Clyde and I have been exhanging PM’s on this and turns out the affair with a married woman leading to a child is not a known fact but an assumption based on the make up of the household on the 1911 Census of England & Wales.

So with my genealogy hat on, I offered up an alternative possibility.

This was based on the fact that there was no formal adoption process anywhere in the UK until 1927. Before that practically all adoptions, (unless land & titles were involved) were informal and undocumented. It’s difficult to know how many children were adopted each year, but it is likely that the most common adoption route happened at birth or shortly thereafter and within the extended family. With most births unlikely to be attended by a health care professional, it was comparatively simple for the babys’ grand-parents, married aunts or uncles to turn up at the registrars office claiming to be the biological parent of the child and brazen it out, to prevent the stigma of the child being born out of wedlock.

I believe that is what may have happened here, and I think my theory is supported by the pension cards.

The 7 month old Ethel Marie Peach, born Birmingham, was recorded on the 1911 Census of England & Wales at 4 Bellefield Avenue, Winson Green, Birmingham. This was the household of her “parents” Frederick George Peach, (aged 29, a Railway Servant, born Kemerton, Gloucestershire) and Kate Peach, (aged 30, born Staunton, Worcestershire). The couple have been married 6 years, and state the marriage has produced three children, all then still alive. As well as Ethel there are also 5 year old girl twins Ivy March and Freda Lily.

That address fell within the Birmingham Civil Registration District.

The most likely marriage of the “parents”,  was recorded in the Kings Norton District of Worcestershire, which covers the west side of the greater Birmingham area and I believe borders the Winson Green area, in the January to March quarter, (Q1), of 1905. This was the union of a Frederick George Peach to a Kate Wakefield.

The birth of an Ethel Marie Peach, mothers’ maiden Wakefield, was registered with the civil authorities in the Birmingham District in Q3 1910.

So far, so consistant.

But living in the Kings Norton District on the 1911 Census of England and Wales there is a 24 year old unmarried live in Housemaid, Ethel Mary Peach, born Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire. She worked at the Poor Law Infirmary at Selly Oak.

Ethel M. Peach, aged 15, can be found on the 1901 Census of England & Wales living in the village of Westmancote, Bredon, near Tewkesbury – but her birthplace appears to be Kemerton. She lived with her widowed mother Ann, (54, born Westmancote) and her siblings Albert, (22, born Westmancote), Arthur, (11, born Kemerton) and Ralph, (9, born Kemarton).

The next bit gets bit tenuous, so bear with me. There is no obvious match for the Peach family on the 1891 Census of England and Wales but there is a Page family with an awful lot of co-incidences and who were recorded living at Upper Court, Kemerton, Gloucestershire.

There is a father John Page, aged 50, born Bredon.
His wife was Ann, aged 44 and born Westmancote – relative age and place of birth consistant with the Ann Peach on the 1901 Census.

Children

Albert, aged 12 and born Westmancote – relative age and place of birth consistant with the Albert Peach on the 1901 Census.
Frederick, aged 9 and born Westmancote – relative age consistant with the “alleged” cuckolded husband on the 1911 Census. He was shown then as born Kemerton.
Ernest, aged 5 and born Westmancote.
Ethel, aged 4 and born Kemerton - relative age and place of birth consistant with the Ethel Peach on the 1901 Census.
Arthur, aged 1 and born Kemerton - relative age and place of birth consistant with the Arthur Peach on the 1901 Census.

There is no likely birth of an Ethel Mary Page registered in Gloucestershire in the right period but there is an Ethel Mary Peach, mothers' maiden name Stallard, whose birth was registered with the civil authorities in the Tewkesbury Civil Registration District in Q4 1886.

The birth of a Frederick George Peach, mothers maiden name Stollard, was registered in the Tewkesbury Civil Registration District in Q2 - what is it with this family and the civil records . Plenty of places in the process where a typo could slip in - and that's if the family didn't give dodgy information in the first place!

Going back to the 1881 Census of England & Wales things get even murkier. There is a John Page, (45, born Bredon), an Ann Page, (35, born Westmancote) along with their 2 year old son Albert Page, born Westmancote, recorded living at Bredon. However there is also a 2 year old Albert W. Peach, born Westmancote, recorded staying the night with his uncle and aunt, the Stallards, at Beckford, Gloucestershire. I wouldn’t automatically assume they are two separate individuals – particularly with young children that normally lived with one family but spent the night of the census at short notice staying elsewhere there is plenty of scope for double reporting.

So in amongst all that name confusion I think there is possibility for Ethel Mary Peach, (born c1886) to be the biological mother of Ethel Maria Peach, (born 1910).

I think what might be happening on the 1911 Census is that neither Frederick George or Kate are the biological parents, but have quietly adopted Ethel Maria to remove any stigma on the family. The child is named after her biological mother, possibly with a long term aim of re-unification. Mother Ethel takes a job nearby so she can keep an eye on her child as she grows up, and in visiting her brother and sister-in-law has reason and opportunity to build a relationship with the child.

I think it’s Ethel Mary’s marriage in 1923 to John Wyatt that you have come across, and following that marriage the teenage Ethel Maria goes to live with her birth mother, as evidenced by the pension card.

Of course no guarantee long term that things would work out between birth mother an child, particularly as the mother had married. Any pension for the child is likely to have ended on reaching 16, so circa 1926.

Clyde has identified a household at 4 Bellfield Avenue, (the 1911 Census address), consisting of Kate Peach, Ivy Mary Peach, Freda Lily Peach and Ethel Marie Peach on the 1935 Electoral Register.A lot could have happened in the intervening 9 years, but certainly seems like Ethel Marie is not using the surname Wyatt.

Possible checks –

1939 Register. If you can find Ethel and John Wyatt then may be able to check back for her date of birth on the birth certificate, (or if she died post 1969, then the published version GRO Register of deaths in England & Wales included the date of birth given by the informant).

1939 Register. Were Frederick George and Kate Peach still together, (if alive).

Probate Register. If Frederick or Kate had a probate, did it mention the other - unlikely if they were estranged \ divorced

DNA. Any subsequent children of Ethel Mary Wyatt, the mother, should not have any Wakefield dna in the mix.

And the relevant entries on the soon to be released, (8th January 2022), 1921 Census of England & Wales.

Still lots of legwork to do to prove its not a whole heap of co-incidences.

Hope that all makes some kind of sense.

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 17 December , 2021 by PRC
Typo

[ss002d6252]

17 minutes ago, PRC said:

The 7 month old Ethel Marie Peach, born Birmingham, was recorded on the 1911 Census of England & Wales at 4 Bellefield Avenue, Winson Green, Birmingham. This was the household of her “parents” Frederick George Peach, (aged 29, a Railway Servant, born Kemerton, Gloucestershire) and Kate Peach, (aged 30, born Staunton, Worcestershire). The couple have been married 6 years, and state the marriage has produced three children, all then still alive. As well as Ethel there are also 5 year old girl twins Ivt March and Freda Lily.

This is Ivy and (widowed) Kate in 1939.

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/33839712:61596?_phsrc=NBE218&_phstart=successSource&gsfn=ivy&gsln=peach&ml_rpos=10&queryId=5608d8dea886a628bf58ca55ab10abe0


Craig

[ss002d6252]

An Ethel M Wyatt married in Birmingham in 1938.


The 1939 register would indicate this was the elder Ethel, if one and the same.


Date of birth would be out slightly but, so is everything else.

Craig

[PRC]

10 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

This is Ivy and (widowed) Kate in 1939.

Frederick George Peach wasn't in the household on the 1935 Electoral Register, so I suspect he is the 51 year old Frederick G. Peach whose death was registered in the Birmingham District in Q2 1933. No obvious civil probate.

Cheers,
Peter

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Clearly she couldn't get married at 12 years  of age, so she was not born in 1910.

EDIT: YES SHE COULD!
In 1923, the legal age for a girl to marry with parental consent was 12!
Increased to 16 in 1929!

Could she be :

Births Dec 1900   (>99%)
Cyphus	Ethel Mary		Stow on W.	6a	397

I can't see any reference to John Cyphus' date of birth.
Was he born before 1884ish?

 

Edited 17 December , 2021 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

[ss002d6252]

5 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Clearly she couldn't get married at 12 years  of age, so she was not born in 1910.
Could she be :

Births Dec 1900   (>99%)
Cyphus	Ethel Mary		Stow on W.	6a	397

I can't see any reference to John Cyphus' date of birth.
Was he born before 1884ish?

 

The 1910 Ethel and the 1923 marriage Ethel seem to be two different parties - the working suggestion is that the older Ethel is the mother of 1910 Ethel.

The Ethel mentioned on the card was re-married to be a Wyatt in 1923 - is there a marriage in between for a Cyrus to a Peach (for her then to be re-married as Wyatt ?). We know she was a Peach directly prior to 1923.

Craig

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

6 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

is there a marriage in between for a Cyrus to a Peach

No. There's never been a Cyphus/Peach marriage. (Between 1837 - 1992).

Edited 17 December , 2021 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

[PRC]

On 16/12/2021 at 14:18, ss002d6252 said:

Notice the use of the term 'remarried - now Mrs Wyatt' - if she was Peach by birth there would be no need to mention the re-marriage.

https://www.fold3.com/image/691245754?terms=cyphus,11580
 

Playing devils advocate here, but if that Pension Card shows a Miss E.M. Peach ,

• who was subsequently "re-married" as Mrs Ethel M. Wyatt,
• and who was the guardian of the illegitimate child of John Cyphus

Do we actually have any documentary evidence to show that illegitimate child was the 1910 born Ethel Marie?

I have been assuming the Miss E.M. Peach was Ethel Marie, but reading back through the thread I'm no longer sure that is automatically the case.

Cheers,
Peter

[ss002d6252]

1 minute ago, PRC said:

• Do we actually have any documentary evidence to show that illegitimate child was the 1910 born Ethel Marie?

Not on the pension cards, no.

Craig

[ss002d6252]

She was Ethel Peach in 1916 and 1919 on the effects record.

Craig

[ss002d6252]

It's a long shot but Cyphus' will might help
https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/Wills?Surname=cyphus&SurnameGrants=cyphus&YearOfDeath=1915&YearOfDeathGrants=1915&IsGrantSearch=False&IsCalendarSearch=False#soldiers

Craig

[PRC]

1 minute ago, ss002d6252 said:

She was Ethel Peach in 1916 and 1919 on the effects record.

She was Miss Ethel Peach, so unmarried, but that could apply to either woman or child. I don't think legally a 5 to 6 year old child could be a legatee so I don't think the money could be paid directly to her.

1 minute ago, ss002d6252 said:

It's a long shot but Cyphus' will might help

If they are still £1.50 it might well be worth a shot. Presumably John Cyphus must have acknowledged paternity in some way in order for the pension to be paid.

Cheers,
Peter

[ss002d6252]

38 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

I can't see any reference to John Cyphus' date of birth.
Was he born before 1884ish?

CWGC have him aged 29 in 1915.

Craig

[ss002d6252]

Just now, PRC said:

She was Miss Ethel Peach, so unmarried, but that could apply to either woman or child. I don't think legally a 5 to 6 year old child could be a legatee so I don't think the money could be paid directly to her.

Yes. If it was a child the monies wouldn't be paid directly anyway by the War Office.

1 minute ago, PRC said:

If they are still £1.50 it might well be worth a shot. Presumably John Cyphus must have acknowledged paternity in some way in order for the pension to be paid.

They are.

Craig