It was my thought too that this wetnurse Felicia had probably nursed another baby in the interm as I’m sure there were many possible reasons that another baby’s mother may have been unable to breastfeed. With the infant mortality rate so high among abandoned children it’s nice to know that Adelaide survived, married, had children and still has descendants living today. I started looking through successive diversi acts for this town and found multiple acts for other proietti, as I have learned abandoned children were usually called based on another post from John Armellino. I am beginning to understand what a common occurrence proietti were at that time. There are roughly 1 to 2 acts per year. It seems to be true for Sant’Elia that adoptions were uncommon there as well. After a quick glance, I do not see anything that looks like an adoption record in the diversi or vari acts for the town in that time period for anyone.
I’m trying to find clues as to why Adelaide may have moved from Sant’Elia to Pietracatella and then married someone from San Giovanni in Galdo. All three comune boarder one another, so it’s reasonable that she would have travelled there for multiple reasons. I searched the Matrimoni, memorandum notificazioni ed opposizioni in Pietracatella for Adelaide Rubino, but they give no more information than I already have. They never list her profession which I thought might be a clue to why she moved around.
I had imagined too, as you had suggested, that Adelaide was born in a town other than Sant’Elia. I believe I came to that conclusion after you had written that d’Ancona is a surname in Campobasso. After searching the website italia.indettaglio.it I found the surname d’Ancona occurs (today) in Campobasso, Ferrazzano, Vinchiaturo and Sepino. Maybe I’m wrong, but I imagine for a woman pregnant out of wedlock living in a city as large as Campobasso it would be fairly easy to abandon her baby someplace in a part of town where the she was unknown, but living in the smaller italian villages where everybody knows pretty much everybody the abandonment would seem to be much more difficult, or even in a neighboring town, without people knowing. Unless maybe, as you explain, she worked on an estate and was and wasn’t seen very much within the town. However, it’s a bit of a strange thought thinking of all these women sneaking from town to town to abandon their babies in order to keep from bringing shame on her and her family. In any case, I need to do further reading on the subject.
I would have to agree with you. I don’t believe she was adopted. I’m curious however, and perhaps John Armellino can give will also know and could provide an example, were adoption records normally amended to a child’s birth act? Or would they have their own act in the year in which the child was adopted?erudita74 wrote:So, if all of the subsequent records you find for Adelaide indicate that her parents were uncertain or unknown, then I believe she was not reclaimed by the natural parents, or even by just one of them, and that she was not adopted by another family. I think that, if the child had been adopted, you would find paperwork to that effect.
One thing I find strangest among Adelaide’s life is concerning her name in records later in her life. It is true that wherever it lists Adelaide’s parents, it consistently lists them as genitori incerti. Where there is much inconsistency however is where Adelaide’s name appears in records later in her life. I know it is not uncommon for certain information (usually age) to be recorded incorrectly the later in the person’s life the document is written. But I just find Adelaide to be such an unusual case. From her first child born in 1866 to her third child in 1875 she is listed as Adelaide Rubino. The last two acts for her children born 1877 and 1882 list her as Angelica di Tubo and Angelica di Donato (a very common surname in San Giovanni in Galdo). And her second child, whose birth act has her as Adelaide Rubino, his death act lists his mother as Angela Tubia. I’ve ruled out the possibility of her death before her last two children were born. Plus, the marriage acts for her first two children in 1890 and 1894 (after the last her last two children were born) list her as “di Adelaide Rubino” - further indication that she had not died. And to me, the strangest occurrence is her name on the death act for her last child. She is listed as Angelica Tommasone.
I’m not expecting any explanation for this. I guess I’m just curious if you or anyone who reads this has seen such variation in records as such.
Erudita, thank you for sharing the information about your grandfather and your uncle. Great examples that help demonstrate what you are explaining.
Just for reference, I’ve added links and two notes on records for Adelaide’s children showing the variations in how her name occurs in the documents.
Maria Pasquale Rossodivita birth act no. 2 (Adelaide Rubino)
http://www.antenati.san.beniculturali.i ... 0.jpg.html
Maria Pasquale Rossodivita marriage act no. 8 (Adelaide Rubino)
http://www.antenati.san.beniculturali.i ... 0.jpg.html
Francesco Rossodivita birth act no. 4 (Adelaide Rubino)
http://www.antenati.san.beniculturali.i ... 1.jpg.html
Francesco Rossodivita marriage act no. 9 (Adelaide Rubino)
http://www.antenati.san.beniculturali.i ... 4.jpg.html
Francesco Rossodivita death certificate lists mother as Angela Tubia.
Filomena Rossodivita birth act no. 50 (Adelaide Rubino)
http://www.antenati.san.beniculturali.i ... 1.jpg.html
Filomeno Rossodivita act no. 28 (Angelica di Tubo)
http://www.antenati.san.beniculturali.i ... 8.jpg.html
Filomeno Rossodivita marriage act no. 4 (Angelica di Tubo)
http://www.antenati.san.beniculturali.i ... ewsIndex=0
Filomeno Rossodivita death certificate lists mother as Angelic DeTeto.
Michelina Rossodivita birth act no. 29 (Angelica di Donato)
http://www.antenati.san.beniculturali.i ... 2.jpg.html
Michelina Rossodivita death act no. 25 (Angelica Tommasone)
http://www.antenati.san.beniculturali.i ... ewsIndex=0