Baptism of illegitimate children

[Anne W]

What was the policy of the Church of England when baptising illegitimate children pre 1837? Did the father HAVE to agree before the child was given his name? Or did they take the mothers word for it? Was there a hard and fast rule or did it depend on the individual clergyman? A lot of questions I know, but I have two illegitmate children in my tree. One was the daughter of Ann Ditton and Thomas Wilkie baptised as Amelia Ditton, the other the daughter of Ellen Neenan and William Waite baptised as Charlotte Waite.
Should I conclude that William Waite recognised Charlotte as his daughter, but Thomas Wilkie didn't with Amelia?
Just one of those things it would be nice to know the answer to.
Thanks, Anne

[Alan Welsford]

One was the daughter of Ann Ditton and Thomas Wilkie baptised as Amelia Ditton, the other the daughter of Ellen Neenan and William Waite baptised as Charlotte Waite.

Interesting, because usually in my experience the baptism record doesn't actually put a surname against the child at all. Surnames are usually against the parents and if the post 1812 pre-formatted register is in use, it's hard to imagine they wouldn't be.

So I would expect, (in an unformatted register), something like....

Amelia, daughter of Thomas WILKIE and Ann DITTON.
or
Charlotte, daughter of William WAITE and Ellen NEENAN.

Alternatively forms like

Amelia, illegitimate daughter of Ann DITTON by Thomas WILKIE

or

Charlotte, daughter of Ellen NEENAN, base born, by William WAITE

(or perhaps with the b******d word in there somewhere!).

I'm assuming in all cases the father is named - very much the exception in my experiences.

None of the forms I have given actually determine the surname used by the child thereafter.

For the entries you are referring to, do you have the exact original text from the registers, please ? Could you post them, please ?

Alan

[Anne W]

Hi Alan,
Thank you for forcing me to dig out the original again! Your right of course, Charlotte doesn't have a surname recorded. ( I feel like a bit of an idiot now!) Parents William and Ellen and in the surname column is only Waite, no mention of Ellens surname. I'm working from a photo copy of the original church register. Its too long a story to go into here, but I know for a fact that William and Ellen were not married and didn't stay together after Charlottes birth. At her marriage in 1860 Charlotte is Charlotte Waite.
For Amelia Ditton I'm relying on my Aunts research carried out in the 1960's . As this was pre computer she had to sight all the original documents personally. Its also why I trust my Aunt's research completely. Amelias parents were down as Thomas Wilkie and Ann Ditton. Maybe the C of E did things differently in the colonies?
I suppose my question should have been, did anyone care that much about surnames in the 1830s 1840s?

[Mary Anne]

I have one from 1826. Indeed, the child's name is given only as the Christian names. There is no father listed at all - one can only assume the child took the mother's name. Here's the transcription form the register...

"Baptisms solemnized in the Parish of Blakesley in the County of Northampton in the Year 1826. When baptized: Novr 26; Child's Christian Name: Joseph Galloway; Parents Name: Christian: Elizabeth; Surname: Pittam; Abode: Woodend; Quality, Trade, or Profession:_; By whom the Ceremony was performed: F White, Curate"

In 1831, Elizabeth PITTAM did marry a Joseph CALLAWAY in the Blakesly Parish Church (C of E), and they had a child together and then emigrated to Canada in 1843. This child - "Joseph Galloway PITTAM" - subsequently became known as "Joseph Pittam CALLAWAY"...so was he the son of Joseph CALLAWAY and Elizabeth PITTAM?? and, if he was, why did they not marry until the child was 5 years old?

Mary Anne

[Anne W]

It sounds as if my two were unusual in having the fathers name recorded at their baptism. Would it be right to assume that the surname the child used , whether the mothers or the fathers, was basically up to them?
Also I suppose the clergymen would have to be pretty sure that William Waite and Thomas Wilkie WERE actually the fathers. I hope so anyway. I'll feel pretty silly if , after spending all this time tracing the Waite and Wilkie families, it turns out my gg grandmas were telling porkies!!!
Anne

[Geoffers]

It sounds as if my two were unusual in having the fathers name recorded at their baptism.

It isn't that common

Would it be right to assume that the surname the child used , whether the mothers or the fathers, was basically up to them?

Provided you don't break the Law in so doing, you can use any name you like. It's up to the mother (and father if living as a couple) as to how they record their name in any paper trail as the children grow up. It's up to the children as to what name they use when they are adults.

Also I suppose the clergymen would have to be pretty sure that William Waite and Thomas Wilkie WERE actually the fathers.

In some cases where the father is named, he will be recorded as 'reputed father'. It depends on the precise wording used in the register as to how much inference can be placed on a man named as father, being the actual father.

[Alan Welsford]

In some cases where the father is named, he will be recorded as 'reputed father'. It depends on the precise wording used in the register as to how much inference can be placed on a man named as father, being the actual father.

I wish I could find the original for this - I'm sure it's widely quoted, but I've lost the reference....

One register has an entry something like....

<-----> son of <----> <----> who claims it was <----> <---->'s child, when in fact it was doubtless the child of the itinerant preacher who was visiting the village at the time.

(Well something like that, anyway).

In one register I've just been looking through for a small Buckinghamshire village, a surprisingly high number of baptisms of illegitimate children do name the father, (although it's still well below 50%, I'd say).

I think the size of the place had a great deal to do with it. In small closely knit communities, I suspect people often had little doubt as to the father, whereas in large townships perhaps much more often only the mother knew, (assuming she did, of course :o).

Alan

[Anne W]

I think your right Alan about the size of the town being important. Both my girls were born in rural communities, Charlotte in Berrima and Amelia in Westbrook near Camden NSW. Everyone would have known everyone else there in those days.
The Dittons seem to be a hard working , god fearing sort of family. They all moved from Westbrook to Sutton Forest near Berrima not long after Amelia was born. I've often wondered if having an illegitimate grandaughter had something to do with it.
Ellen is a different story!
Anne

[Geoffers]

I think the size of the place had a great deal to do with it. In small closely knit communities, I suspect people often had little doubt as to the father, whereas in large townships perhaps much more often only the mother knew

The recording of father's of illegitimate children was of course, all connected with the application of the Poor Law.

The Best book I've seen on the subject by a long mile is sadly now out of print, but may be available through library inter-loan, or in second-hand bookshops - and can definitely be seen at Norwich. The book is: "The Poor Law in Norfolk 1700-1850" ISBN 0 904463 90 7, published by EARO. It gives some fascinating examples of original documents dealing with bastardy examinations, together with a good simple text. I purchased a many years ago and it is still an extremely useful reference book - it could well do with reprinting.

[Alan Welsford]

I have one from 1826. Indeed, the child's name is given only as the Christian names. There is no father listed at all - one can only assume the child took the mother's name. Here's the transcription form the register...

"Baptisms solemnized in the Parish of Blakesley in the County of Northampton in the Year 1826. When baptized: Novr 26; Child's Christian Name: Joseph Galloway; Parents Name: Christian: Elizabeth; Surname: Pittam; Abode: Woodend; Quality, Trade, or Profession:_; By whom the Ceremony was performed: F White, Curate"

In 1831, Elizabeth PITTAM did marry a Joseph CALLAWAY in the Blakesly Parish Church (C of E), and they had a child together and then emigrated to Canada in 1843. This child - "Joseph Galloway PITTAM" - subsequently became known as "Joseph Pittam CALLAWAY"...so was he the son of Joseph CALLAWAY and Elizabeth PITTAM?? and, if he was, why did they not marry until the child was 5 years old?

Mary Anne
Sorry Mary Anne, I missed your post last time through.

I think recording a father's surname as one of an illegitimate child's second names was about the strongest statement a mother could make about parentage, if she was not able to actually name him at a baptism, or (later on) as part of civil registration, for whatever reason.

It's highly usual for the first child to a couple to be so named, and I have lots around the edges of my tree.

James Fincher BARRETT in my tree was a child of George FINCHER and Sarah BARRETT born before they married. He is never ever referred to thereafter as anything other than James FINCHER.

In that case there is only a few months before the parents married, but in other cases I have it is several years.

One can only guess at why this was. I have one family in London, living and registering all children as FINCHER, where the first known birth is in 1879, with at least 8 children up until 1893. The parents finally marry in 1899, when the oldest is around 20. :confused::confused:

It is possible the father, James FINCHER, (a different one!), was already married in that case, and had to wait for the death of a first wife, but I have found no evidence of this, and have not so far got around to sending for a certificate that might establish him as a widower.

The more normal case is that one, or sometimes two children are born to a couple, who then marry, at which point the child very often assumes the fathers' surname. It's not that uncommon though, later in life, to find them reverting to the mother's surname. It's never easy is it!

Alan

[busyglen]

My gt.gt. grandfather John Jarvis, was illegitimate, and to date I haven't been able to find a baptism for him in 1823. However, on his marriage certificate he gave his father's name as John Green. It was only last year, that I discovered his mother's name was Ann Jarvis. So...John grew up knowing his father's name but was known by his mothers surname. They never married, and Ann went on to marry twice later on.

There doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rule does there? I would be interested to find out what the baptism record showed, .....if only I could find it!

Glenys

[busyglen]

In one register I've just been looking through for a small Buckinghamshire village, a surprisingly high number of baptisms of illegitimate children do name the father, (although it's still well below 50%, I'd say).

Alan

Alan, my John was born in the small village of Dunton, Bucks. but there isn't any mention of a baptism for him on the records there.

I don't suppose there is any chance that there is a John Jarvis...father John Green, son of Ann Jarvis on that register is there? See my earlier post for details.

Glenys

[Alan Welsford]

Alan, my John was born in the small village of Dunton, Bucks. but there isn't any mention of a baptism for him on the records there.

I don't suppose there is any chance that there is a John Jarvis...father John Green, son of Ann Jarvis on that register is there? See my earlier post for details.

Glenys
Glenys,

You are talking about a little way from parishes where I have transcripts of the registers, but I will load them up later on, and check for you. (I know DUNTON appears as a surname in those registers, not that that helps in the least!).

I think one of either the Bucks Family History Society, or the Bucks Genealogical Society, (I can't remember which), offers lookups of surnames for everything they have transcribed for Bucks at a modest fee.

I know much of the stuff is not in the IGI, and for some parishes that are, the information transcribed, even within just a single year, is partial. (I don't know why).

Alan

[Mary Anne]

Sorry Mary Anne, I missed your post last time through.

I think recording a father's surname as one of an illegitimate child's second names was about the strongest statement a mother could make about parentage, if she was not able to actually name him at a baptism, or (later on) as part of civil registration, for whatever reason.

It's highly usual for the first child to a couple to be so named, and I have lots around the edges of my tree....

The more normal case is that one, or sometimes two children are born to a couple, who then marry, at which point the child very often assumes the fathers' surname. It's not that uncommon though, later in life, to find them reverting to the mother's surname. It's never easy is it!

Alan

Thanks, Alan, that's what I figured had happened. Unless there was a GALLOWAY in there somewhere, and the CALLAWAY is just the man who eventually married her!!

It's interesting, too, because Joseph CALLAWAY was an Overseer of the Poor and active in supervising expansion of the parish church in his parish (Weedon Bec), although he seems to have been a practicing Methodist at the time! Kind of why I had thought it odd he would have fathered the child out of wedlock...but maybe that is me putting later mores onto these folks.

(Might have a little look for GALLOWAYs in Blakesley some time...)

Mary Anne

[Anne W]

Thats an interesting problem Mary Ann. The laws of probability would suggest that Joseph GALLOWAY and Joseph CALLAWAY are the same person, but you can't help wondering if Joseph Callaway did come along and marry Elizabeth. Could he have met her through his work with the poor? Are Galloway and Callaway common names in that part of the world? It's all speculation of course!
Thanks everyone for the responses to my original query. It seems the surname a child of unwed parents went by depended entirely on circumstances. I suppose you could say the same thing for step-children, especially when the mother re-marries when the children are young.
Ellen Neenan married William Monday on the very same day that Charlotte was baptised 2nd June 1843. Charlotte married James Phillips on 26th April 1860 as Charlotte Waite. BUT on her death certificate the informant says her maiden name was Monday.
Our forbears like to make it difficult don't they!
Thanks again Anne

[busyglen]

Glenys,

You are talking about a little way from parishes where I have transcripts of the registers, but I will load them up later on, and check for you. (I know DUNTON appears as a surname in those registers, not that that helps in the least!).

I think one of either the Bucks Family History Society, or the Bucks Genealogical Society, (I can't remember which), offers lookups of surnames for everything they have transcribed for Bucks at a modest fee.

I know much of the stuff is not in the IGI, and for some parishes that are, the information transcribed, even within just a single year, is partial. (I don't know why).

Alan

Don't worry too much Alan. There's no sign that Ann actually lived in Dunton, this was only mentioned by John Jarvis/Green on one of the Censuses. I did wonder if at some point he was in the Winslow workhouse, as I have a mention of him as a child of 11 applying for money, but it just stated that he was illegitimate. I did check all of the parish records for Dunton, and although there was a Green, the time span was out.

I am not even sure where Ann came from, which might help, other than her father was Richard Jarvis, and she came from Bucks.

I do have everything moving forward from John's marriage etc. so I will have to content myself with that unless something else turns up later. I may try your suggestion and see whether the BFH or BGS can find anything.

Many thanks for that info. :)

Glenys

[Alan Welsford]

Glenys,

I currently only have available

Buckland
Aston Clinton (includes main church, plus St Leonards, Aston Clinton)
Halton

none are very close to Dunton, I'm afraid

There are GREEN(E) and/or JARVIS events in most of these, but nothing that in any way matches anything you have given , I think.

There's a case of what might well be GREEN sisters marrying the same man (MOSELEY). Perhaps not, though, as both marriages are at the same church, (Aston Clinton), and it was a prohibited degree then, so they might have been pushing their luck. (Where I've seen this before, they usually slope off to London for the second marriage).

By the way St Leonards is a fascinating church, as it was a hotbed of clandestine marriages up until Hardwickes marriage act in (I think!) 1754. There are whole years where virtually nobody married was "of the parish". As a result it was not allowed to perform marriages for many years, and the register only starts to record them again in 1861, when a very distant relative of mine was the first groom listed.

Sorry I can't help with your GREEN and JARVIS problems.

Check it yourself, but I think the Bucks Genealogical Society (BGS), probably only offers lookups of marriages. (It will loan parish register transcripts to members only).

For a lookup service for baptisms, I think the Bucks Family History Society looks more promising.....

http://www.bucksfhs.org.uk/index.php?option=com_parish&task=eventsBap


Alan

[busyglen]

Thank you very much for that information Alan. I started to have a look for the ULR earlier, but got waylaid for lunch.

To be honest (don't you hate that phrase, but we all seem to use it) I don't really hold out much hope of finding a baptism. Not all were baptised were they? I just hoped that it would give me another location, possibly of Ann's place of birth, so that I could link in to her father. I've searched the 1841 (some of which is difficult to read) and found possibles for Ann and her father, but it's really hit and miss. I know that theoretically, John Green (his father) is a blood line, but that is going to be more difficult to prove. Buckingham actually features in the pattern as well, as John married Emma Robbins there, but I think that was just a case of a soldier, being in the area at the time.

Many thanks again for having a look, I really appreciate your time. |hug|

Glenys