base child

[alanjohn]

I have an odd one,i think.
mary jackson and humphrey woolcock married 1784.
1st child John,bapt mar 1785.
2nd child Elizabeth,bapt apr 1786,BASE child of Mary,no mention of Humphrey though.
If she was a widow,she wouldn't be classed as illigitimate would she?
I also can't find a death in the area for Humphrey...

[Jan1954]

Hello alanjohn,

Well there are a couple of possibilities:

1. Humphrey had died and the baby was born too far after for it to have been his ;)

2. Humphrey and Mary had parted company and she was living with someone else

3. It could be a different Mary Woodcock, for example, Humphrey's sister. I had this with a branch of my family and it took me ages to realise that I had been following the wrong branch...

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

I was luckier than you, as I did find a death for the husband/father:

1. Charles HINCHCLIFFE bap. 09 Oct 1853 - s. of Grace, Spinster
2. George NAYLOR m. Grace HINCHCLIFFE 16 Oct 1853
3. George NAYLOR died 22 June 1859
4. Louisa NAYLOR born 06 Aug 1859 - birth cert - d. of George & Grace
5. Louisa NAYLOR bap. 02 Oct 1859 - d. of George & Grace
6. Harriet NAYLOR bap. 03 Aug 1862 - d. of Grace NAYLOR, Widow

[Geoffers]

[quote=alanjohn;149659].
2nd child Elizabeth,bapt apr 1786,BASE child of Mary,no mention of Humphrey though.
If she was a widow,she wouldn't be classed as illigitimate would she?/quote]

Depends on who the father was. If this all relates to the same people and Humphrey wasn't the father and the mother had not remarried, then the child would be illegitimate.