Children being "given away"

My late father-in-law's father is said to have been given away as a child.
It is implied he may have used the adoptive family's surname as a child. He
used his birth surname as an adult. Apparently he said little about his

Bill Spillane...

Does anyone have any experience of untangling such arrangements, which I

family background.

No Spam...

My father was "given away" shortly after he was born in 1908. He took
on the name of his new family.

My father never said a word about his beginnins to me or my sister.
From the name of his mother on a birth certificate which we found in
his papers after he died [which confused us for a while] I have traced
many living relatives on both sides of his family. Interestingly it
appears to be the female relatives on his mothers side who know about
the scandal his birth involved. I suspect it was the girls who were
told the story by their mothers. Sons either were not told, didn't
listen or forgot. It appears that the later descendants of his father,
who was packed off to Australia in 1908 before the birth, had been
told the baby was a girl.

The baby was exchanged for a bottle of whisky!!

I have his birth certificate: he was born in 1889. At the 1891 census his
parents (and two siblings) are still at the same address but he is not
there. (Incidentally, would the census have enumerated people at the place
where they were normally resident or where they were physically present on
census night, if different?).

Jeff...

Theoretically it was at the address where they spent Census night.

But, not uncommon for them to be listed where they 'usually' lived.

Indeed, not uncommon for them to be enumerated twice if just away from
home temporarily.

Eve McLaughlin...

They should have been enumerated where they physically slept overnight.
However, this rule can be bent if Dad included little Johnny, even
though he slept over at Gran's (who may list him or may not); and for
night workers, they may be enumerated twice or not at all. There was a
house in Portsmouth with three sailors and two young women describing
themselves as dressmakers where the entry says 'no one *slept* in this
house this night.
Quite often, children from a large family were physically farmed out
overnight (regularly) to neighbours or relatives, simply to make room
for the rest to sleep. Toddlers were sent elsewhere if Mum was expecting
and ill, or if another sibling had TB or needed a lot of care. A
naughty child could be willingly given over to relatives who were
tougher and might lead him back to the straight and narrow. A sickly
child might be given to a kindly lady with nursing experinece and more
time to use it.
If a family was large and poor and there was a childless couple who
took a fancy to one of the prettier or more useful children, then that
child might be handed over for a time or permanently. A tradesman or
farmer might take over a boy of 10 or so to be useful around the house -
informal apprenticeship. As yer man kept his name, he must have stayed
in touch with his family, or perhaps been with relatives who kept him in
touch.
All these arrangements would be informal and might have lasted a few
years or most of his childhood. There is unlikely to be any sort of
record - unless he was included in a census or (much later) was the
subject of a council (social services) report.

Does anyone have any experience of untangling such arrangements, which I
assume were informal?

Bill Spillane...

I also have an instance of such an informal arrangement personborn abt 1920
Mother's brother and his family of five children leaving Scotland to a new
life in NZ, take the baby with them and bring him up as their own. He was
not told until after he had married. Economic reasons I suppose.
Bill Spillane

David Hunt