Born out of wedlock

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

I'm extracting one of my family surnames, from baptism transcriptions of Birstall Parish in Yorkshire, which I purchased from a FHS.

I knew that one of my direct Ancestors was illegitimate, born to a Frances FAWCETT, but even so, I still followed this line further back, seeing as I research female lines as well as male lines.

I have just found out today, that Frances was a bit of a 'slapper' ..... as she had four children altogether, all with different Fathers |shakehead ..... but she has been kind enough to name each one! :D

I shall be grateful for some input re my question, which is:

What do you do, in a case like this, where the Father's name is given? Do you take it with a pinch of salt or believe it? If you believe it, do you research this line too or not?

Thank you.

[busyglen]

Hi Diane,

I am interested to know this as I also have an illegitimate gt.gt. grandfather! I can't find proof of his birth/baptism to see what is shown, but on his marriage cert. his father's name was listed as John Green. However, he went through life as John Jarvis, which could have been his mother's name. So...until such times as I can find proof of his father (if ever) I shall have to stop at Jarvis. I really don't know how we get past this one! :(

Glenys

[Pam Downes]

Hi Diane,
If the father's name is given in the PR then I think that I would believe that to be the truth as I don't think the vicar would just write any bloke's name without a little bit of proof. e.g. the father appearing in church for the baptism or the father having been named at the Petty Sessions in a newspaper report.
I probably would try and trace the (alleged) father's line but I would make a very large note to the effect that his connection in the family tree is based solely on the PR entry unless, and until, I had further proof.
(I'm ignoring the pedants who would say that the only parent who you can safely claim is the mother, as even that isn't necessarily true today.)
Pam

[Guy Etchells]

It depends on the parish in rural parishes the vicar would know pretty much everything that was going on. In city parishes there is more chance of confusion.

There is always the chance of finding a Bastardy Bond which would more or less clear up the situation.
Cheers
Guy

[Ron Leech]

Hi Diane

I would go along with Pam's thoughts. If it is listed by the vicar at the baptism good enough. I would be less inclined to believe the name when listed on a marriage certificate. In either situation I would try to identify the man and his family line.

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

Many thanks to all for your replies. Birstall Parish is fairly big, but it's not a City Parish.

The transcription gives the baptism date of 21 November 1759, the forename and surname of the child, the name of Frances FAWCETT (SW) = Single Woman as the Mother.

The Father's name is listed in full.

I shall take the advice given and make a note in my file, that this information is taken from a Parish Register entry only.

[jeeb]

Hi Diane,
If Frances was a bit of a 'slapper' as you call her and had 4 children naming different fathers I would think it quite likely she didn't know for sure who the real father was. (It does to a certain extent depend on the time lapse between each child whether she was in a single relationship with the named father, it is of course also possible she was a prostitute) It was not common practice for parish registers to name fathers of illegitamate children let alone 4 different ones by the same woman. I wonder if this was maybe a particular fad of the then vicar and I think I would check other illegitamate births to see if a father is named there too. If not I think it may be a case of 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned' and I would take the fathers name with a pinch of salt.
Cheers Jeremy

[Peter Goodey]

Now I know the date and the parish, I'd go along with Guy on this one. I think it's a reasonable working assumption that the vicar recorded the names for a reason - the most obvious reason being that the parish intended to chase the fathers for money. I too would look for bastardy bonds.

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

If Frances was a bit of a 'slapper' as you call her and had 4 children naming different fathers I would think it quite likely she didn't know for sure who the real father was. (It does to a certain extent depend on the time lapse between each child whether she was in a single relationship with the named father


My reference to Frances being a bit of a 'slapper' was a joke! The four children were baptised in 1759, 1763, 1766 and 1773, so enough time between them all to have a relationship with the four Fathers' in my opinion.

it is of course also possible she was a prostitute)


Hmm ..... *let he who is without sin, cast the first stone*
I disagree, Frances was just unlucky, lots of prostitutes found ways and means of not getting pregnant.

In those days, it was common for a child's baptism entry, to state only the name of the Father, the poor married Mother doesn't get a mention, whereas some entries with an unmarried Mother, says base born etc. The female takes 'the rap' and the male is applauded for 'sowing his wild oats' .....or so it seems!

It was not common practice for parish registers to name fathers of illegitamate children let alone 4 different ones by the same woman. I wonder if this was maybe a particular fad of the then vicar and I think I would check other illegitamate births to see if a father is named there too. If not I think it may be a case of 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned' and I would take the fathers name with a pinch of salt.


Maybe *our HONNIBALL's* from Somerset were more secretive, (they are my Ancestors on my Father's line and all his family names were sneaky and secretive!) whereas the FAWCETT's are my Mother's line, all Yorkshire born and bred and call a spade a shovel!

I did as you asked and looked at the entries for all other surnames in my booklets. From 1724-1809, there are lots of illegitimate births of course, but only a handful of them do NOT show the name of the Father! I doubt very much if it was the same Vicar for 85 years, so probably the policy of the Church/Parish to chase the Fathers' for money, as Peter says. However, from 1811-1817, there are no names of Fathers' listed for illegitimate births at all.

[Peter Goodey]

I think it was an obligation rather than a policy...and a helluva stink from the ratepayers if they didn't.

[Pam Downes]

One of the entries in Palling baptism PR for 1806 reads John Moll, son of Ann Moll - Thomas Empson the father "as the girl confesses". (Seems as if 4x great granddad was a naughty boy.)
Pam