Base child/illegitimate?

[coseley]

Can anyone tell me please what is the difference between a "base child of" and an "illegitimate child". I have found both descriptions are used in old parish registers sometimes in the same handwriting within several entries suggesting there must be a difference between the two. Wondered if perhaps one referred to a single mother and one to an unmarried couple. Thanks.

[Jan1954]

Hello,

I've always thought that they meant one and the same thing. However, on reflection, "illegitimate child" appears to be mentioned when both parents are recorded rather than "baseborn" when just the mother is mentioned. Hmmm.

[Peter Goodey]

They both mean the same thing. Some may claim that one is more derogatory than the other but you'd have to do a bit more research in that particular parish to form an opinion.

Don't forget that any moral judgement is going to be influenced by the impact on poor law obligations.

Basically it's all down to the whim of the parson at the time the entry was made (although it's a fair bet that 'filius meretricis' was intended to be derogatory ;)).

You'll find many more terms as you work through more registers. 'Merrily begotten' is my favourite.

[busyglen]

You'll find many more terms as you work through more registers. 'Merrily begotten' is my favourite.

I like that one Peter, sounds much better! ;)

Glenys

[Neil Wilson]

Pity you didn't have the vicar where some of mine were christened, he didn't mince his words, using the B word in full. No confusion there.

[Rove]

Does anyone know what term is used in other countries ?

And when a registration is done in an RC church ?

[ChristineR]

Does anyone know what term is used in other countries ?

And when a registration is done in an RC church ?

I have one lass in Scotland, who did not marry and died of old age, her illegitimate tag was taken to the grave - getting a final mention on her death certificate, still with both parents named.

A cousin sent me transcripts from 1836+ records in Germany, and it seems that it was the done thing in this particular Parish to record the status for everyone at all events. At the baptism of the first child it was pointed out that the parents were engaged. Then it was for the next kids - first legitimate child, second legitimate child etc. On the marriage records the birth status of the bride and groom were mentioned.

On baptism records here in Australia, I would imagine that the same terms would be used as in England and Ireland, as the ministers were of the same origins.

I cannot help from experience, as the only baptism records I have are from St James, Melbourne (C of E). In this case, the parents had been married a little over a year beforehand - and they brought back older children to be baptized. A different minister officiated. No comments were made.

'Registration's apply to civil birth records - they were not done at the church, though I suppose it could happen that the local minister was also the local registrar. I have many illegitimate kids in my lines, but on the registration documents there is never any comment made about the circumstances, it will just have 'Not Married', a line through it, or left blank in the information about the father's column.

Parents also lie about their marital situation in both baptisms and civil registrations - so any comments depend on the local knowledge of the minister making the baptism record, and his personal feelings.

ChristineR :)

[hyatt]

I was just wondering the same thing myself, I have a relative who had several (6)children whilst a widow (husband died 1863) 1863, 1865, 1868, 1870 and twins in 1872..she married again in 1873...

I have the death cert for one of the twins who died in 1873.....on their birth cert they are registed under her maiden name .......and where the fathers details should be it just says "mother not married" with no details of any previous children.

All these chidren appear to be children of her 2nd husband (they have his name on their death certificates...
Although on her marriage certificate to her 2nd husband she does not mention any children except 2 legitimate children to her 1st husband.......

In the certificates I have seen (as extras) on certificates I have ordered it is usually "illegitimate" written on birth or deaths I havent seen any "bastards" or "baseborns"

It certainly must have been a sensitive subject
I have noticed marriage dates on some death certificates are "very liquid" adjusting to the ages of the children rather than the actual date of marriage.

I came across one relative who was illegitimate who named his mothers parents as HIS parents on his marriage certificate.

and another who registered her 3 children under the name of her missing first husband rather than the man who she later married who was really their father....all to avoid the "illegitamate" label scrawled across their birth certificates I suppose...

[Alan Welsford]

I've always assumed "Base Born" and "Illegitimate" to have identical meaning, and, as said by others, think it largely depended upon the incumbent, or even sometimes how he felt on the day.

I've also see "spurious", which seems to used be where the mother was married, but the father was not the husband

e.g. (15 Jun 1806, St Leonard's, Aston Clinton, Bucks)
Sophia spurious daughter of Mary HARDING, supposed not by her husband.

Slightly more unusual is this from the main church of Aston Clinton, Bucks

(22 Nov 1829)
Mary Anne child of Thomas & Jane JEMMETT of Clerkenwell, retired tradesman. These parties imposed upon me by falsely representing themselves to be man and wife but it has been discovered they are not married.

Now you don't get that sort of detail from the transcripts in the IGI, do you!

[dance]

I have an ancestor who is in the 1881 census with the forename "base". I have found out that this has been wrongly interpreted from the correct name "Rose".

It is awful that this cannot be corrected.

[Geoffers]

I have an ancestor who is in the 1881 census with the forename "base". I have found out that this has been wrongly interpreted from the correct name "Rose".

Assuming that you found this in the 1881 transcript, it is a good example as to why it is important to check original documents.

However, problems also occur when an enumerator had to try and read difficult handwriting and so made the best that he could of it; those resulting errors are understandable.

[joette]

I have an ancestor-one of my main lines & he is named as the spurios son of Thomas Torrance-his Mother Elisabeth Lynn/Linn never marries & makes it clear on any document that this is the case-never anything but single.She also I believe is the mother of another child Charles King about three years previously although I cannot prove it is her or find any further trace of him.
I have also seen on the OPR -"as a result of ante-marital fornication"
"brought forth in fornication"
Various Latin descriptions which I in my optimistic heart believe is the Minister/Clerk trying to hide the origins from the lesser educated who may look at the records.

[coseley]

I started the initial thread asking if anyone knows the difference between a "base child of" and "illegitimte". I subscribe to Ancestry.co.uk and suddenly thought to ask their solutions people if they could help with this. They tell me that "base" is the child of a single woman and "illegitimate" is a child born to an unmarried couple. After one such entry I found the letter P and on the transcribed parish entry P is Vital. I have also sent a request asking Ancestry if they can explain this too. I will keep you posted.
Barbara

[Ladkyis]

so base born means there is no father named and illegitimate means that there is a father named but not married to the mother...

I don't think the ministers of the time were that pernickety. I think they wrote whatever they felt was an accurate description - and possibly the one that would bring the greatest shame on the woman and the child. They were very christian these old ministers sometimes...

I read it first as meaning that base meant no father and thought, how did she do that then? if you see what I mean

[v.wells]

I read it first as meaning that base meant no father and thought, how did she do that then? if you see what I mean

That is something I thought too! Great minds think alike|biggrin||biggrin|

[Guy Etchells]

They both me the same.
One reason for the use of different terms in parish registers written in the same hand is very basic.

All (or at least the majority) of parish register entries should be transcripts.

The various events are first recorded in a day book, then at the end of the week the events of the week were transcribed into the parish register.

The 70th. Canon in 1603 puts it this way

“In every Parish Church and Chapel within this Realm shall be provided one Parchment Book at the charge of the Parish, wherein shall be written the day and year of every Christening, Wedding, and Burial which have been in that Parish since the time that the Law was first made in that behalf, so far as the ancient Books thereof can be procured, but especially since the beginning of the Reign of the late Queen. And for the safe keeping of the said Book the Churchwardens at the charge of the Parish shall provide one sure Coffer with three Locks and Keys whereof the one to remain with the Minister and the other two with the Churchwardens severally so that neither the Minister without the two Churchwardens, nor the Churchwardens without the Minister shall at any time take that
Book out of the said Coffer. And henceforth upon every Sabbath Day immediately after Morning or Evening Prayer the Minister and Churchwardens shall take the said Parchment Book out of the said Coffer, and the Minister in the presence of the Churchwardens shall write and record in the said Book the names of all persons christened together with the names and surnames of their parents, and also the names of all Persons married and buried in that Parish, in the week before, and the day and year of every such Christening, Marriage and Burial. And that done they shall lay up that Book in the Coffer as before;"
Cheers
Guy

See also
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/pre1812.htm

[Guy Etchells]

Here are a few terms used in Parish Registers-

bastard, base, baseborn, illegitimate, spurious, by-blow, natural, love-child, love-begotten, misbegotten, chance begot, chance child, merrily begotten, merrybegot, baseborn, begotten in fornication, a by-blow, child of shame, lovechild, misbegotten, a scape-begotten child, whoreson, child of a harlot.

In Latin there are filius nullius (son of none), filius populi (son of the people), filius meretricis (son of a prostitute).
Cheers
Guy

[Sue Mackay]

My husband's great great grandmother was baptised with her father's surname in 1815 in Durness, Sutherland but the minister took great delight in entering Born in Adultery with [mother's name]. I could really hear that Highland rolled R in BORRRN :D

[billysax]

Does anyone know what term is used in other countries ?

And when a registration is done in an RC church ?

As a sacristan at my RC Parish church, one of my duties is to complete the Baptismal Register, with details supplied by the Parents or Parent, ready for the Priest to sign. In many cases the parents names are different. Sometimes only the Mother's name is supplied. There is never any mention of a child being "baseborn" "illegitimate" or any other term which may apply.

[Guy Etchells]

That may be the case now but was certainly not in the past.
Woolston Registers 1810 -
"September 16th was christened Ann Harrison a natural child of Mary Harrison. Hamlet Norris was the father. Old Mary Harrison stood Godmother. It had no Godfather."
9 entries later-
1812
February 2nd was christened Wm Litherland, natural Child of Jane Litherland. Sponsores, Ann Cadwell, Daughter of Joseph Caldwell & Richard Hamlets.
June 7th was christened Moyses Litherland, natural child of Alice Litherland. Godmother, Anne Charnock.

What must never be forgotten with parish registers is the importance of a bastard child being entered as a bastard child.
This was not (in most cases) done to embarrass anyone but to aid the child.
If the parish register did not show the infant as a bastard he/she could not claim that parish as their parish of settlement and could be shipped out.
Cheers
Guy

[benny1982]

Also under the eyes of the law, if the parents subsequently married after the birth of an illegitimate child, then the child still remained illegitimate, even if it took its fathers name. Sometimes, it wasnt always the natural father the woman married, but in most cases it probably was.

As said, if the new husband then baptised the child as his natural child eg "Son of John and Mary Smith", then it is almost probable that he was the real father of the illegitimate child. That can be a vital clue in helping prove if the new husband was the child's father.

[Geoffers]

I subscribe to Ancestry.co.uk and suddenly thought to ask their solutions people if they could help with this. They tell me that "base" is the child of a single woman and "illegitimate" is a child born to an unmarried couple.

I think it is wrong for them to have given such advice. Descriptions used depend on local custom, period in time, preference of the cleric who maintained the register.

I found the letter P and on the transcribed parish entry P is Vital.

It could mean 'pauper', but what date is the entry? How many entries have the letter 'P' so appended? Is the letter written in the same handwriting and probably contemporary to the original entry - or has it been added later?

[MarkJ]

I think it is wrong for them to have given such advice. Desciptions used depend on local custom, period in time, preference of the cleric who maintained the register.




Quite right Geoffers. To claim that base means one thing and illegitimate means another is complete hogwash.
As you say, it seems to be purely down to the person recording the baptism and their views on such matters. A quick look around various registers will leave you in no doubt that the parish priest will often use many terms - sometimes even depending on whether this is the first or second child for example! In some rural parishes, you can get a "feel" for the vicars views on the mothers conduct by what he writes ;) Some just use one word for all - be that base, illegitimate, bastard or their own "pet" term, others seem to vary.

Mark

[coseley]

I think it is wrong for them to have given such advice. Descriptions used depend on local custom, period in time, preference of the cleric who maintained the register.



It could mean 'pauper', but what date is the entry? How many entries have the letter 'P' so appended? Is the letter written in the same handwriting and probably contemporary to the original entry - or has it been added later?

The entry I am quoting is a tanscribed entry on Ancestry.co.uk Parish Records for Shropshire and therefore not in original handwriting. If you type in Thomas Smout Diddlebury Shropshire the first entry on Ancestry list reads

Thomas John Elizabeth Smout
Vital P
If you then click on this entry you get

Shropshire: Diddlebury, Munslow Parish Registers Herefordshire Diocese
Bap 9th July 1786 Thomas (John erased) a base s of Elizabeth Smout, P

Presumably P could mean pauper or perhaps prostitute

As it is a transcription on Ancestry I had expected them to be experts.
Regards,
Barbara

[Guy Etchells]

One thing researchers must do if they really wish to understand old records is to forget about today’s standards and expectations.
Try to view the record as it would be viewed when written, there used to be no disgrace in having a bastard child, the disgrace was in having a child and being unable to support it.
It was also quite common in earlier times for the first or even second child to be born prior to the marriage of the parents.
The reason a P appears in registers was due to the significance of being a pauper.
During the period births, burials & marriages were taxed paupers were exempt from payment.
During the period of burial in wool again paupers were exempt.

If an unmarried woman had a baby that baby was the responsibility of the parish to feed, clothe and educate.

It is not the stigma of illegitimacy being referred to but the economic status.

As for experts it is surprising how many “experts” have come in to the subject by taking a course and suddenly emerge as experts in the field.
Expertise comes with experience not by taking a course, many course and books on the subject of family history simply repeat fallacies that have been handed down in earlier books or courses.
Cheers
Guy

[Geoffers]

The entry I am quoting is a tanscribed entry on Ancestry.co.uk Parish Records for Shropshire and therefore not in original handwriting.

In your shoes, I'd be wanting to look at the original entry to confirm its accuracy.

Presumably P could mean pauper or perhaps prostitute

No, as Guy has mentioned, it is for pauper. The tax which he mentioned being a result of the 1783 Stamp Act, which is why I asked the date.

As it is a transcription on Ancestry I had expected them to be experts.

Expectation and reality are often different..........The many people who provide vaulable and free advice on these forums would, in my opinion, seem to be more expert.

One thing researchers must do if they really wish to understand old records is to forget about today’s standards and expectations.

Without doubt, this is one of the most basic and important rules for anyone carrying out any historical research, and in the case of the entry you mention leads onto...............

It is not the stigma of illegitimacy being referred to but the economic status.

[coseley]

Thanks Geoffers for all the info. I would very much like to see the original entry but it hasn't been possible so far for various reasons.

I would also like to see it because I have come up against a "brick wall" with my gr gr gr grandfather John Smout b abt 1786. Familysearch.org shows this entry and that he was born in Cann Lane, Coseley. I have no proof of this although all his children were born there and his widow was living there in 1841. He seems to have disappeared between 1834 and 1841. I cannot find either a birth or death record for him after extensive searches carried out by myself and other relatives living both in this country and abroad but I do have a copy of his marriage entry for 1806. This doesn't give an address but just says "of this Parish". The "John erased" on Thomas's baptism entry intrigues me as the date coincides with John's birth and Thomas and his wife Mabell had a child buried in St. Leonard's cemetery in Bilston in 1811, close to where John was living.

I have looked through all the microfilms at Coseley Archives and their staff have also done a search for a record of John's birth or death.

I have visited my local LDS Centre who tell me that the film showing the entry "John Smout b abt 1786 Can Lane, Coseley, " will not give me any more information.Family history is so absorbing because of all the things you learn along the way and of course, the people you meet.
Regards and thanks again, Barbara

[Geoffers]

John Smout b abt 1786. Familysearch.org shows this entry and that he was born in Cann Lane, Coseley.

What is the source of this information?

As a result of the 1783 Stamp Act, there was an increase in private and late baptisms; if you get to see the registers, you might search for several years from 1784-1800 to see if you can find a baptism or record of him being admitted into church.

I have no proof of this although all his children were born there and his widow was living there in 1841. He seems to have disappeared between 1834 and 1841.

Have you tried searching the 1841 census for the surname SMOUT in Staffs, Warks, Worcs?

Is it a commonly occurring name, or are there few entries clustered in one area? This might narrow down the seach area to look for your chap.

How complete is the FFHS burial index for the area, does he turn up there?

Could he have been a bad lad and in prison/asylum/workhouse and only recorded by initials in the 1841 census?

I do have a copy of his marriage entry for 1806.

Is he or his wife shown as a 'minor'?

Was the marriage with consent of the parents?

Was the marriage by licence or banns?

This doesn't give an address but just says "of this Parish".

This is normal and 'of this parish' often isn't strictly accurate.

I have looked through all the microfilms at Coseley Archives and their staff have also done a search for a record of John's birth or death.

Are these microfilms of the original registers? If so they should be as good as checking the original registers. Have you tried non-conformist records?

I have visited my local LDS Centre who tell me that the film showing the entry "John Smout b abt 1786 Can Lane, Coseley, " will not give me any more information.

It ought to or it is meaningless - the very least that I would expect is a source which you and others interested in this chap could verify.

'Research' without the inclusion of a source is worthless.

[Peter Goodey]

John Smout b abt 1786. Familysearch.org shows this entry and that he was born in Cann Lane, Coseley.



The record you mentioned was "submitted by a member of the LDS Church". Please see extensive discussions elsewhere on this site and other places about just how valueless such records are.

In the absence of any supporting evidence, I think you can safely ignore it.

[coseley]

Thanks Geoffers and Peter Goodey for assistance.

I have sent away for searches of the National Burial Index and Probate Records but nothing found. At Coseley Archives I looked through microfilms of the original registers and their staff have also made searches on behalf of other family members. I have also looked through what local Non-Conformist registers they have. Three of John's children were baptised in a Wesleyan chapel and the others in two parish churches, St. Thomas's, Dudley and All Saints Parish Church, Sedgley where John married Mary Lankson in 1806. I have also checked cemetery records and for mining accidents as he was a miner. He doesn't show on any local workhouse records. They appear to have been a god-fearing family. I have also visited what graves I could find to look for clues.

I have searched all the censuses from 1841 onwards for any other Smouts in the area. Thomas was the only one in 1811 who could have a possibile connection. A Smout family in Tipton and their children all went to America. There were families in Warley and Little Packington and many Shropshire villages. All can be traced back to Shropshire roots. I have several hundered Smouts and have followed them through all the censuses, connecting families where possible. I have visited churchyards and on a map have plotted their journeys from many Shropshire villages as they moved over the years and spread out until they reached the Black Country.

Until you suggested it, it never registered that it was a banns marriage. From Mary's death certificate it seems she died in 1874 aged 85 years which means she must have been born in 1788 so she would have been 18 when she married. She and John made their mark and the names of the witnesses are not family names. Sorry to bother you with yet another question but would I be likely to find records of the Banns anywhere?

Thanks again, I promise I'll go away and get out of your hair for a while.
Regards, Barbara

[Geoffers]

I have sent away for searches of the National Burial Index

You can now do this online at the pay-per-view site 'findmypast'

and Probate Records

What you find depends on which court may have dealt with probate prior to 1858 - you may have to check more than one court.

At Coseley Archives I looked through microfilms of the original registers and their staff have also made searches on behalf of other family members.

It seems as though the 'transcribed entry' on familysearch.org may be like many others there and not very accurate

Sorry to bother you with yet another question but would I be likely to find records of the Banns anywhere?

Registers of baptisms, marriages, burials and banns

Thanks again, I promise I'll go away and get out of your hair for a while.
Regards, Barbara[/quote]

These forums are to ask questions and discuss various topics on historical research - please ask if you need help.