I thought it was sad but now it's worse
 

Distant connection in my tree - my gt gt uncle Charles Purvey and his wife had several children. All together in 1901.

In 1911, eldest daughter Mabel is a visitor in Glamorgan.
Daisy and Lily, the next two children, are in a Children's Home in Swindon.
The younger girls, Elsie and Ada, are boarding with an unrelated family.
The only son, another Charles, is in the workhouse.

I found both their parents had died and thought how sad the children had been split up.

But now I find, trawling newspapers in FindMyPast, that Charles was prosecuted for child neglect in 1906. His wife was to have been prosecuted too, but had died. The NSPCC inspector said he'd made 18 visits to the house over a year and found the children underweight and barely clothed. Poor things! Charles was sentenced to 4 months' hard labour.


http://www.findmypast.co.uk/records/...e&pageNumber=4

That's so sad, Nell.

I think it's quite an eye-opener reading the papers. I was looking for something on my relative the other day and found myself reading another bit of the column about neglect of a family. From the census etc (before and after the events) you never would have dreamed of what the family had gone through. Made me wonder how many other families suffered malnutrition etc even when the head of house appeared to have had a perfectly respectable job/trade?

And now, a mystery. I'd assumed both parents had died by 1911, hence the scattering of the family. BUT I've just found Charles' death in 1969 so he should be around in 1911, but I can't see him.

Charles was born 1864 in Chedworth, Gloucestershire and died in Devizes reg. district of Wiltshire, having previously lived with wife and children in Swindon, Wilts.

Have you looked under his initials?

Yes, and using just Charles or just Purvey or all males born 1864 +/-a year in Chedworth.

There's a someone transcribed as female C Pursey on Ancestry b Chedworth aged 47 but he is clearly a male widower.

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin...959564&recoff=

It is so difficult to know the truth behind some newspaper articles. An ailing wife with seven young children might find it very difficult to look after them. There is no mention of drink or gambling, but that could easily exhaust all the spare money. At that period, too, a wife would be trying to keep the husband fed, so he was strong enough to work and keep the family together.

I can't see a death for him in 1969, Nell? He would have been about 105 so it should be easy to spot?

Jackie - thanks, that was speedy and efficient. Looks very likely. I'm most grateful.

KiteRunner - lol! I put his son's death by mistake. Charles senior died 1919.

I've just returned to this branch of the family and found that I'd only got deaths for 5 of the children. So I tried to find a marriage for the last girl - and found it. She married at the age of 62 and had nearly 20 years before her husband died, so I hope they were happy ones.