These removal orders could be draconian In the Hingston one-name study we have Arthur Hingston, born in Moreleigh, who married Elizabeth Gillard from Charleton. He was a Customs Officer and drowned, we believe off Exmouth, while living at Littleham in 1824. She returned, with her children, to Kingsbridge to be with her own family, but was then subject to a removal order back to Littleham in 1825:- "/Upon the complaint of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of KINGSBRIDGE ...... that Elizabeth Hingstone, Henry her son aged 20 years, Bevill Gillard her son aged 14 years, Charles her son aged 12 years, Jane /[presumably Sarah Jane]/her daughter aged 9 years and Arthur her son aged five years have come to inhabit the said parish of Kingsbridge not having gained a legal settlement there, ...... the lawful settlement of Elizabeth and her children is in the parish of Littleham ...we do require you the churchwardens and overseers of the poor in the parish of Kingsbridge to convey Elizabeth and her children from and out of the said parish of Kingsbridge to the said parish of Littleham and then to deliver them to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish there./" It doesn't say much for the charity of the church. She was too ill to travel and the order was not carried out - she died soon afterwards and the children were brought up by relatives. More details at:- http://www-civ.eng.cam.ac.uk/cjb/hingston/hh.htm#hh4 Chris Burgoyne OPC for Aveton Giffird Hingston One-Name Study <<snipped>> As I understand it, the wife took on her husband's place of settlement when she married. Therefore, no matter what the circumstances of the child's birth, any required support should have come from the husband's place of settlement, not her birth parish. Further, if she had been obliged to move for support reasons, there should be something recorded as a Removal Order - though whether it survives, is a different matter.