Sent to Canada - but not an orphan or pauper, so why?
Replies: 4
Sent to Canada - but not an orphan or pauper, so why?
|
|
Posted: 5 Sep 2007 1:30PM GMT |
Classification: Query
Surnames: KOHLER
An ancestor of mine, Stanley Howard R Kohler, arrived in Canada in 1880. He is found on the Manitoba census 1901, and was approximately just 11 when he arrived in Canada, alone.
He was not an orphan - his parents, Thomas and Emma Kohler, were still very much alive and he was the third of ten children.
He was born 18 May 1869 in Clapham, London, lived until at least 1874 in Margate, Kent, and then at some stage the family moved again as they are on the 1881 census in Lambeth, London - without Stanley of course. His elder siblings, Maud Emilie J Kohler (born 1864), and Estell Helena Kohler (born 1863) would have been adults by the time of his departure (assuming Maud survived into adulthood - I know Estell did). However, by the year Stanley left there were four younger Kohler children in the family and a further two would be born within four years of his leaving.
So, we can assume that the family were not paupers as they would surely have had to lose their other children too and I can account for over half of Stanley's younger siblings, all growing up and remaining in England. Stanley's father, Thomas, went into Liquidation in August 1874 but that hardly explains why Stanley should be removed to another country and the rest remain at home.
The 1901 census describes Stanley as a farmer, a trade totally alien to our family, so I assume, given the date of his departure, that occupation and the fact that he was on Manitoba records, that he was a British Home Child. The question is, why?
Having discounted the possibility of him being an orphan or from a pauper family, I wondered if children were sent away on this scheme if they were convicted of crime? And if they were, where would I look for information? I have read that children were often taken from their parents for what was perceived at the time as "for their own good" but surely if this was the theory the other children would have been taken away from Thomas and Emma Kohler too?
Can anyone please help me work out what might have happened and why?
Thank you.
He was not an orphan - his parents, Thomas and Emma Kohler, were still very much alive and he was the third of ten children.
He was born 18 May 1869 in Clapham, London, lived until at least 1874 in Margate, Kent, and then at some stage the family moved again as they are on the 1881 census in Lambeth, London - without Stanley of course. His elder siblings, Maud Emilie J Kohler (born 1864), and Estell Helena Kohler (born 1863) would have been adults by the time of his departure (assuming Maud survived into adulthood - I know Estell did). However, by the year Stanley left there were four younger Kohler children in the family and a further two would be born within four years of his leaving.
So, we can assume that the family were not paupers as they would surely have had to lose their other children too and I can account for over half of Stanley's younger siblings, all growing up and remaining in England. Stanley's father, Thomas, went into Liquidation in August 1874 but that hardly explains why Stanley should be removed to another country and the rest remain at home.
The 1901 census describes Stanley as a farmer, a trade totally alien to our family, so I assume, given the date of his departure, that occupation and the fact that he was on Manitoba records, that he was a British Home Child. The question is, why?
Having discounted the possibility of him being an orphan or from a pauper family, I wondered if children were sent away on this scheme if they were convicted of crime? And if they were, where would I look for information? I have read that children were often taken from their parents for what was perceived at the time as "for their own good" but surely if this was the theory the other children would have been taken away from Thomas and Emma Kohler too?
Can anyone please help me work out what might have happened and why?
Thank you.
