Genealogy Chat

hello again.

looking through the 1921 census for my elusive G Grandmother,shes living at home with her parents age 23,i know she never married and she lived at the same address until she died in 1967 (if this is the correct person ive been chasing for 16 yrs) she gave birth to my grandfather in 1915 age 17( age adds up) she named her son ronald after her father,my question is, would it be strange for a female age 23 to be still living at home in 1921 or did people marry later then.
THANK YOU.

If she had a child out of wedlock and her parents were prepared to let her stay at home and bring up the child then it wouldn't be strange for her to still be living at home. It would be more strange in those days for her to move out and live on her own with the child.

Most people would either stay with their parents or get married and set up their own home. Single people didn't routinely do this as they do now.

Kath. x

If she living at home and looking after the baby then it’s unlikely she would take on a live in position elsewhere


She had good parents it seems who helped her and didn’t throw her out because she had a baby

Being an unmarried mum was often stigmatised in those days

In addition to what Kath and Shirley say -
an unmarried daughter was often expected to stay with her parents to look after them in their old age.

Also - maybe she had lost a boyfriend/fiancee during WW1. Very many women did, and remained unmarried.

Re looking after parents -
even as relatively recently as 1964, when my mother died, several people said to me, "Oh, you won't be going to university now, will you? You'll be staying to look after your dad." (I was 17).
Such a thing had never occurred to my dad or to me, and I did go to uni.
But the notion was still prevalent even then.

hello
Thank you for replies,what i forgot to say was my g grandmother gave my grandad away before he was 3 months old,it was not a formal adoption as this was in 1915,we think she knew his adopted parents but cant be sure.