John Prescott

[Andy]

Don't know (or want to know ) the man.

However his family tree has just been included in the Welsh version of Scotland's "Homecoming".

I've got no time for Prescott as a person or politician, however the "Respected, Expert Genealogist", Gillian Smith supposedly found: "as 100% positive without documented proof" that Mr. Prescott's G-G-G Grandfather had a 4 child incestuous relationship with his daughter.

I don't have the time to check these specific details, but the woman went on to say that this was "Quite Common" in the 19th century.

I have come across ONE case of incest, outwith my own family, in all my years of searching in my own tree and 1000's of others. It's not the norm, or common. Incest (outwith Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome) was a Taboo up-there with cannibalism!

This EXPERT is trying to say it was common amoungst the peasant class about 150 years ago.

I REFUTE THIS COMPLETELY!

Like I said, I really don't have the time just now to look into this but if anyone could look into ATHALIAH PARRISH born Chirk, Denbigh, Wales 1826, Father, Thomas, I'd be very happy to take up the fight against this EXPERT.

[joette]

What a blooming cheek-where is the proof of her assertion? I would have thought it is such ananathema & social taboo that it was as uncommon then as it's now.
I know it happens & I am sure it did then but how did you prove historical incest? The only case I can think of is one amongst my Granny's friends.I don't want to go into details but it was considered shocking,the Father was prosecuted & ostracised but the woman & her children were shunned too.

[LesleyB]

The programme in question appears to be available on BBCi player for anyone in the UK who wishes to watch it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _Prescott/

I've not watched it...yet... but I'm not sure how anyone, "expert" or no, can be "as 100% positive without documented proof". Seems a bit of a contradictory statement. Maybe if I watch it I'll find out....

Best wishes
Lesley

[Anne H]

For those of us outside the U.K. here is the link to a bit of the interview. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8382869.stm

The so-called expert's claim seems to be that on the census form Athaliah's husband stated the children were his step-children...I wouldn't call that proof!

Regards,
Anne H

[emanday]

Anyone can claim to be an expert in something.

However, most of them eventually come up with something that simply proves beyond any doubt that they aren't! The John Prescott "blurb" is, in my opinion, going to prove to be that particular "expert's" downfall.

The "as 100% positive without documented proof" really says it all!

[Andy]

Anyone deciding to have a look at 1841 Census records will find Chirk, Denbigh, enumerated in the Chirk Hundred (a land division) in Oswestry, Shropshire (Salop).

[LesleyB]

Hi Andy

Where did you find the quote? Was it perhaps in an article about the programme, as I did not hear it said in the programme itself. Inthe programme, if memory serves me correctly, John Prescott said they could not be 100% sure.

I do agree that the conclusion jumped to by the genealogist seems a bit rash - as the children are later referred to as step sons to the man (in I think the 1871 census), William Jones, who Athalia later marries, (who apparently lived almost next door) they would seem to not be his, but that does not completely discount some other relationship she may have had, I reckon. Apparently her father was not a witness at her marriage.

As far as I could make out from the programme, the situation was Athalia Parrish b. 1826, parents Thomas and Ann; Athalia had three illegitimate (or was it four?) sons; John 1844, Charles 1847, James 1849 all in Chirk area. She then married William Jones and had what I think they said was " a further seven children" but I may be wrong (as they later said 10 children total so looks like my arithmetic is wrong somewhere!!) also in the Chirk area; Henry, George 1856, Benjamin 1859 Joseph 1860ish who are all on the census - looked like it must be1871? . The only mention I'm seeing on IGI are all submissions where Athalia appears to be noted as Maria...just to confuse us further!!

You'd think if there was some irregular goings on that there may have been something mentioned in the equivalent of the Kirk Session records or similar.

Best wishes
Lesley

[LesleyB]

Anyone deciding to have a look at 1841 Census records will find Chirk, Denbigh, enumerated in the Chirk Hundred (a land division) in Oswestry, Shropshire (Salop).

Oh dear, I've folks from Oswestry area....

[Andy]

Hi Lesley,

Not seen the program but read two different articles in newspapers giving virtually the same quotes "as 100% positive without documented proof" and that incest was "Quite Common". Further, the articles go on to quote the EXPERT in stating it was fairly usual for the eldest daughter to assume ALL the deceased mother's duties.

Records come from the (I think) Methodist Church in Chirk, these books were not photographed by LDS but there are some accurate submissions.

Athalia was baptised Ophelia in 1826, daughter of Thomas Parish and Ann Jones they married 1815 in Chirk (Ann died in 1837)

She wasn't even the eldest Daughter, Pricilla was born in 1818, and Elizabeth in 1822

"Apparently her father was not a witness at her marriage. " The acticle said he wasn't invited, I don't know how they would find that out unless there was a extant Guest List. Besides, out of tens of thousands of marriage certs I've trawlled through I can't remember a single father witnessing a son or daughters marriage. (Witnessing the mark of a Witness - yes - being the witness - No)

Sloppy bit of research jumping to sensational conclusions, a real disservice to the Genealogical Community at large and besmirching the name of someone long-gone, on, not even, flimsy circumstancial evidence: here's more valid circumstancial evidence; she had three illegitimate sons staying with her father in 1851. In 1841 she seems to be living in service in Oswestry as ATHALIAH JONES aged 16, the Head of House's son was, Charles Batterbey, 16 years old, since Charles was the name of her second born, and the name doesn't appear anywhere else in the family, Charles is more likely to be the father than poor old Thomas.

Then there is Pricilla Jones aged 2 in 1841 staying with Thomas and his family of 8, son John and daughters Pricilla and Athaliah are not at home. Pricilla Jones, by the same reckoning, MUST be Pricilla's daugher by her father, Thomas. However, she's not, she's the daughter of John, the eldest son, and his wife Mary Jones.

One of my own G-G-G Grandmothers had at least three children out of wedlock by three different fathers. However, even if she hadn't named the fathers (and they acknowledged it) the LAST conclusion that I'd jump to is that they were the result of an incestuous relationship with a brother or her father.

[joette]

Agree with you Andy.I don't why people think they"know" things when there is no proof or any hint of such.
I am only going by family tales heard from much older relatives but most working class families were very circumspect about the seperation of the female /males in the family.I have heard tales of large families living in single ends where they dressed in shifts to protect the modesty of either sex.Also tales of men meeting with "accidents" if there was any hint of "interfering" with their children.I am not claiming them as 100% accurate but with a large grain of truth.
Most men/women remarried quickly in those days too for what I assume were mainly pratical reasons.We however do not know much with 100% accuracy-even gravestones have been known to hold inaccurate information & how many inaccurate or misleading info has been given on Census schedules?