A Few Tips On Illegitimacy.

[benny1982]

Hi

Having experienced a few illegitmacies in the family, I thought I'd share a few more hints and tips on illegitimacy and finding the putative father, and determining if the subsequent husband was the father, or being suspicious of the youngest child many years younger than the penultimate one.

If you come across an illegitimate birth in your family, and you at that time being have no evidence of who the father could be, dont always assume that he was a local person until you have verified that through census, church registers etc. If the mother was a servant, she may have had positions at different houses, and if you find the putitive father lived several miles away in a census, look at his occupation. If he was a male servant or footman or coachman, then he may have travelled around a bit or had roles at different houses. Even if he was just a labourer, he may still have known people who lived a fair distance away. If you do find such a reference, check old maps and if there was good rail and carriage access to the mothers home parish, then it is very possible.

A lot of illegitimate births after 1837 went unregistered for that reason, but parish records, and if they survive, affliation and bastardy orders may have survived. If the illegitimate birth was before the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, the chances of finding a bastardy order actually increase due to poor law rules but dont be put off trying for a post 1834 affliation or court order against a putitive father. Checking local newspapers can help.

Did the mother marry shortly after the birth? If she did marry a man, not always, but in my opinion, mostly it was to the childs father. There could have been several reasons why they married after the birth, ie, money, or the father may have still been married, perhaps to a dying wife and had sought comfort while his wife was still alive. Was they baby baptised as the natural daughter of the new husband? If so, that is a good clue.

Did the mother flee her home parish after the birth of an illegitimate child? If she did, and married within a few months, check to see if the man she married had lived in the area that the mother moved from and went with her. If he was also living in the same area as the mother before the move, then you are almost certainly dealing with the father of the baseborn child. There could have been a scandal which made them flee their home areas.

Why was the last legitimate offspring 8 or more years younger than the penultimate one? Yes, the mother could have had a final baby later in life, but this could also indicate the covering up of the birth of an illegitimate grandchild, and one of the much elder daughters was the mother. You may not prove it, but you can try and theorise.

Ben

[pipsqueak]

That's helpful - you give some good ideas of where to look for clues. Thanks!

[*bunty*]

My 3 x great grandmother gave birth to 3 sons in a small Welsh town between 1845 and 1850 before marrying 2 years after the last son was born. She went on to have a further 6 children with her husband. Unfortunately she is missing from the 1841 Wales census and in 1851 is living with her father and her 3 sons (and her father is listed as her husband and her children listed as his |shakehead). Myself and my two second cousins have not managed to discover the father of the first three sons (the middle son is my 2 x great grandfather). I have two of their birth certs and cannot find reference to the last. I also have Parish registers and again there is no father listed. There are so many possibilities!

[Peter Goodey]

The best and highly recommended guide to researching illegitimacy is the book "My Ancestor was a Bastard" by Ruth Paley which I understand can be supplied by the sponsors of this very site.

See also the message entitled "Tracing Your Roots" which mentions the upcoming radio interview with Ruth Paley on this subject.

[ash33au]

Thanks for the tips Benny.

My son's great grandfather was born illegitimately in 1872... five years before the mother married, leaving us with a bit of a quandary.

As my son's mother is the youngest child of her father's second marriage, most of her relatives had passed on by the time she was old enough to start asking questions and perhaps no-one really knew anyway as gg had adopted his step father's surname.

[Marie C..]

I had given up of ever finding who my great great grandfather's father was. He must have taken an interest in his son as was at his wedding 22 yrs later.(in 1853) and signed the register. But apart from his name I have not a clue who he was. The married a Goerge Jones when the boy was five and left my great, great, grandfather with his maternal grandparents .
There are too many John Billinghams living in the Northants area at the time to know which one could have fathered him.
But maybe I'll read that book, get some clues and have another go.
Marie

[benny1982]

Yes often illegitimate children occurred because one of the parents was a servant. And if the dad was already married, then they couldnt marry. As said, a lot of parents of a baseborn child fled together to escape a scandal and intinidation from locals.

Also, delayed marriage plans for the parents also caused a lot of illegitimate birth s.

And parents pretended to be married when they were'nt, and they lied on birth certs.

[Roger47]

Hello Ben

Found your advice very interesting,
I have been searching for my G/Grandmother's birth in 1855 in St Austell or at least that's her given birth place throughout her life
Her name was EMMA TRELAWNEY HUSBAND the illegitimate daughter of Elizabeth Husband also born St Austell I have spent a few years trying to track down her possible father and have on 3 occasions sought professional help all to no avail
I was advised that "many" illegitimate births were never registered even up to 1875
So I decided to try the old advice regarding using the true fathers name as the Childs middle name, well there are a few variations on the Trelawny?ey name but no one seems to fit the bill
Eventually I did manage to obtain a copy of Emma's Baptism but by then she was 16 years old ( this was carried out in St Austell ) so after all this I am wondering if there could be Affiliation or Bastardy records for her ??? How difficult is it to search these records or to get them searched and who would have local newspaper records for St A at that time

Many Thanks for any advice and directions to follow

Roger

[benny1982]

Hi Roger

What does that baptism record tell you?

Many illegitimate babies werent registered before 1875 for that reason.

Yes, try any affliation or Bastardy orders for the 1850s if they survive for St Austell. Local newspapers might also be a good idea.

As said, if you cannot find a Trelawney who could be the father, dont discard any really, as the father could have been someone who lived 20 miles away.

Did the mother Elizabeth always remain single?

Ben

[LittleMissP]

I've got a brickwall I'd love to knock down regarding the paternity of my great grandmother. She was born in 1897 in Stockton, Durham and her father is not on her birth certificate or on either of her two marriage certs. Nor can I find her on the 1901 census (with or without her mother), under any variation of spelling of surname, different surname altogether, variation on birth place, etc. There is a whole different family living in the house she was born in by the time of the next census. Her name was Florence Gillespie, and her mother was Margaret Gillespie. Margaret did marry 5 years later but the family she had from this marriage knew nothing about her, even her existence. I just can't wait to try to find her in the 1911 census! Just don't know what else I can do- any ideas anyone?

Thanks,
Paula

[jemson ledger]

Some good ideas here , but as a real novice in tracing family history, I do not really know what resources are available to me ,or how to source them from the UK. I had quite a dream run finding the Australian history, as my Great Great Grandfather was a man of historical significance in South Australia, and I have been able to trace both him and his wife, and all their children here, and mark all their gravesites.
The difficulty that I am now having is, that other than a marriage certificate, which says his wife's(mary Ann Wright)father is deceased, and no parent named for my GG Grandfather(William Ledger),and that they were married at Sevenoaks, Kent ,in 1849,I have been unable to get any further information.
The official history of Brighton SA, commissioned by the Holdfast Bay Council,states that he was the natural child of a Mr Jemson and a Mary Ann Ledger,as opposed to us being told he was either an orphan , or estranged from his family ,but the natural child bit sounds right, as he later changed his name to William Jemson, although the family name is still Ledger(most of us are known as Jemson Ledger)
I did find a William Jemson christened in Halstead in 1805, which makes him old enough to be Williams Father (William Ledger was born in Halstead in 1826) and a Mary Ann Ledger who married a Richard Lewington in Kent in 1830.
This particular information interests me as Lewington was supposedly a Captain in Wellington's Army, and I found a William Ledger in the 1814 census in the Chatham Barracks, which makes me wonder if he and Mary Raised William.
All supposition, but desperation makes one put pieces together(but sometimes incorrectly,too)
Any suggestions as to how I access the necessary resources which may help me would be really appreciated.

Millicent13

[benny1982]

My great, great grandmother Mary Ann Kate Roberts was born to a servant father Thomas Roberts and a single spinster mother Mary Ann Walder. The father was still married when Mary was concieved but his previous wife was ill with tuberculosis, which was contageous. No wonder he sought comfort in a much younger woman. Thomas was 50 and Mary Ann was 23.

Thomas previous wife died in Nov 1863. Six weeks later the illegitimate baby was born. Just about 2 or 3 months after the birth, the parents moved suddenly to London. I think this was to escape a scandal back in Sussex. Thomas only had 1 other child who was 12. She went to live with an aunty.

Once Thos made an honest woman of Mary Ann, they then baptised their child a few months after the marriage.

I cannot blame Thomas for wanting to seek comfort in another woman while his wife lay dying of TB. But I think it did create a scandal which is why the migrated to West Hackney, North London. Thomas carried on a a servant there.

Ben

Ben

[susan-y]

Thanks for alot of "food for thought":)

Makes the puzzles more fun with a little more information. I'm thinking of checking a few of my "sudden" place of employment changes to see if that may help solve a couple of ???? births on my tree. Also, I'm going to check and see if when the lady in question moved, pehaps a male servant may also have moved on. I ususally don't pay attention to the names of other servants at the same abode, but maybe I'd better double check|blush|

Sue

[benny1982]

Hi Susan

Yes, my great, great gran was born at the end of Dec 1863, oh what a night, as in the song, late December back in 63 lol.

The birth was registered at the end of January 1864. By June Thos and Mary had both moved suddenly to North London, 50 miles away from their previous residences. They wed in July 1864 at West Hackney Church. They must have moved there in about March or April. They obviously went together, so as you also suspect with your ancestors sudden migration, it was to escape a scandal.

They obviously couldnt be traced in London due to its size but you do need to also look into why ancestors moved suddenly if they were servants or if they had an illegitimate child.

Ben

[birdsedge]

I've got several bastard ancestors who pose a problem, but one is dead easy. William Hitchman Rose was born to Everelda Rose (a servant) but within a couple of years Everelda was married to Thomas Hitchman and all William's siblings had the surname Hitchman. William must have used the Hitchman surname when growing up (he's named as William Hitchman on one census) but he must have reverted to his legal surname of Rose upon marriage.

However his wife, Janie, was also illegitimate but for some reason lied on her marriage cert.

Jane Keeton was born to Hannah Keeton who (five or six years) later married David Bell. I have no reson to think DB is Janie's real father as he was older than Hannah and a widower with a first family. Janie is listed as his stepdaughter on one census (age 9) and as a servant in the household (age 19).

On her marriage cert she listed a father as 'James Keeton' but her birth cert has no father listed and there is no James Keeton obvious in the records except an uncle who seems perfectly legit and lives a fair distance away.

I can understand someone lying about being a bastard on ther marriage certificate, however when the man she was marrying was also a bastard and made no attempt to list his own father on the marriage certificate, why should Janie worry about it enough to lie?

There's also the puzzle that according to family heresay Janie was known as Janie Bell or Janie Lowrie... but I haven't a clue as to where the 'Lowrie' comes from. If her birth father is a Lowrie I haven't been able to trace him.

[benny1982]

Hi Birdsege

Even if they lived a fair distance away, dont rule that out. 20 miles or so is nothing in my book. For example, A woman in Durham could have had a baseborn child, and the father may have been living 150 miles away in Cambridgeshire. He may have known her through work, or he visited Durham etc. In 1720 a woman in Chelsea, London had a baseborn child and the father lived in Staffordshire, over 100 miles away.

Also, if a woman became pregnant and was unmarried, often the simple threat of an affliation order or court order would be enough to make the father admit paternity.

I am certain that Thomas Hitchamn is William's father but it does seem strange why he didnt list him on the marriage certificate.

Ben

[birdsedge]

Many illegitimate babies werent registered before 1875 for that reason.



Why 1875? Did the law aboiut regisdtration change in 1875?

Jacey

[Jan1954]

Why 1875? Did the law aboiut regisdtration change in 1875?

Jacey
The Registration Act of 1875 put the responsibility of registering a birth on the parents and introduced penalties for failing to do so.

[Peter Goodey]

Those born in the workhouse were more likely to be registered.

[benny1982]

Often the parents planned to wed before the birth but also they often couldnt due to circumstances like the father was still married or even the time of year and finance.

As stated my gggran was born in December, in the middle of winter. Her mother wed the father as quickly as she could but they had several hurdles to get over before doing so like the fathers wife finally died 6 weeks before the birth after a long illness and he needed time to grieve. Also the actual birth delayed marriage. And the time of year, in the middle of winter. Then the mothers grandfather died in Jan 1864 and once all that was over they swiftly moved to London and married by July. Despite a few hudles like deaths and births and the cold winter they wed as soon as they could.

Ben

[birdsedge]

Thanks for all these helpful hints. I have a double-bastard problem.

The line I'm tacing is my husband's - his g-g-grandfather, Bejamin Haigh.

Benjamin Haigh was age 21 in July 1861 and he married Fanny Mellor in the parish of Thurgoland on July 22nd. Ben's father on the marriage certificate is named as John Brook, a miner. The conclusion I jumped to immediately was that Ben was illegitimate but that the father was known... and then I found the following 1851 census entry:
Jane Turner living with Robert Turner and 4 Haigh children at Crowedge (Kirkburton parish, Huddersfield). The children are all described as 'wife's son'
Children are:
John 13
Ben 10 (he's mine)
Henry 4
Richard 2
So was Jane married before? Jane Haigh and a Robert Turner married in Kirkburton, Huddersfield in October 1848, (a kind contact from the Hudersfield FHS looked it up for me in the parish register transcripts) but how do I determine Jane's birth surname and parentage?

It seems quite likely that Jane's maiden name is not Haigh as I doubt she'd have four illegitimate children. (Though I can't discount that.) So I need to find a previous marriage for Jane. I think I've found Ben's birth certificate in December 1839, Huddersfield Vol 22 Page 327. Fingers crossed it's the right one. I've sent for the certificate. Of course I still need to find out where the John Brook comes in. Could he possibly be a later husband for Jane and an adoptive father for Ben?

And then to top matters, the parish register transcript for Jane Haigh and Robert Turner's marriage says: Jane Haigh 35yrs Spinster of Foxholes NO FATHER GIVEN

So that lends weight to the 4 illegitimate children theory and means I'm now hunting for an illegitimate Haigh birth around 1814 somewhere within the Kirkburton parish possibly (Crowedge or Foxholes, Huddersfield.)

Needless to say I haven't been able to find either Benjamin Haigh, John Haigh, Jane Haigh or a definitive John Brook

Any ideas?

[Peter Goodey]

So was Jane married before? Jane Haigh and a Robert Turner married in Kirkburton, Huddersfield in October 1848, (a kind contact from the Hudersfield FHS looked it up for me in the parish register transcripts) but how do I determine Jane's birth surname and parentage?


What does the parish register entry say?

What was Jane's marital status? What was shown as her father's name? Who were the witnesses?

If you don't know this, you need to get the certificate. You can't afford to skimp on certificates for direct ancestors.

Marriages Dec 1848

Haigh Jane Huddersfield 22 281
Turner Robert Huddersfield 22 281

[birdsedge]

What does the parish register entry say?

What was Jane's marital status? What was shown as her father's name? Who were the witnesses?

If you don't know this, you need to get the certificate. You can't afford to skimp on certificates for direct ancestors.

Marriages Dec 1848

Haigh Jane Huddersfield 22 281
Turner Robert Huddersfield 22 281

Her marital stsus was spinster - that's why I say ithe parish register entry lends credence to the fact that she had 4 illegitimate childrern before marriage to Robert Turner - and if the parish register entry says NO FATHER GIVEN. Is there any reason to suppose the certificate will say anything different?

While appreciating that nothing beats having the certificate all those seven quids are mounting up. Five this week for other branches of the family.

I'm not a skinflint but I'm on a budget so if the certificate is only going to duplicate what the parish register says then I should save my seven quid on this occasion

Happy to take advice as to whether the certificate has a significant chance of naming Jane's father or giving any different marrital status than the parish egister does.

As to witrnesses, they weren't related by the looks of it.

This is what's in the PR
the Marriage of Robert Turner and Jane Haigh Kirkburton Parish Church by banns 2-10-1848
Robert Turner 27yrs Bach Labourer of Foxholes
father James Turner Lab
=
Jane Haigh 35yrs Spinster of Foxholes
NO FATHER GIVEN
neither signed x x wit James Hoyle
John Armitage

Will a marr. caert give me any more?

Jacey

[familygene]

On a slightly different note, in my case the Father's full name (Richard Morgans) was stated in the Parish Register (Baptisms) whilst the mother was only referred to by her first name (Mary)!

That the father was a servant (Coachman) hasn't been a problem, but finding a mother without a surname.........! I'm just keeping my fingers crossed for survival of Bastardy Bonds within Glamorgan (Parish of Aberpergwm; Hamlet of Pentreclwydau) for the year 1832 for a Morgan Morgans

[birdsedge]

I haven't even begun to explore bastardy bonds yet. Good luck

Jacey

[benny1982]

Often if the mother had an illegitimate child and the father had ran off, died or still stayed with his other wife, it mainly took a few years for the woman to meet another man who would be willing to take in someone else's child. But most marriages after a base child were to the father, however, if a woman was single with a baby, it could take a while for her to meet and marry another man, and things like that dont happen in a few weeks or months. If it was reasonably sudden, and the man was not the father, it was normally to someone she knew, like a fellow villager or street resident she had known for a while.

That is why in a lot of cases the grandparents took the baby on as theirs or the baby was given up for adoption. A man only acknowledged paternity if he really was the dad.

Ben

[Jan65]

My 2xg grandmother Jane gave birth in October 1873 just ten days after her sixteenth birthday, so had obviously become pregnant while only 15. I don't know if she had been in service - her father was a baker with his own business so I think it unlikely.

In 1881, they were living with Jane's parents, and her 7 year old daughter Emily was described as being the granddaughter of the head of the household, which is correct.

However, by 1891 Jane had married, but although she was living just a few doors away with her new husband and his four young children from his previous marriage, her 17 year old daughter Emily remained at their old home with her grandmother, her grandfather having died by this point. On this census however, Emily is described as being the daughter of the head, rather than the granddaughter that she was.

Do you think this is just enumerator error, or is it possible that Emily's grandparents acted as her parents even though in the first census she was correctly named as their granddaughter? I always thought it a little strange that Emily didn't move with her mother when she married - unless it was simply a question of not enough room in the house.

Reading all your hints and tips makes me want to try to find out who Emily's true father was. I have in the past glanced at the other male neighbours in the census, and wondered, but haven't taken it any further, believing that I would be unable to trace him. But maybe I can ...?

[LittleMissP]

Hi Janice,

First places to look are at the birth certificate and then parish record of baptism, either of these could potentially name the father (the latter is more likely)- have you checked these out?

Paula

[Jan65]

This used to be a fairly common occurrence. It could be the grandparents took the role of parents to the child so as not to jeopardise their daughter's marriage prospects, or possibly your gt. gt. grandmother's husband was not prepared to take on an illegitimate child, along with the children from his earlier marriage.
Finbar.

Hi Finbar - I think Jane's husband was okay about it as I believe he provided well for Emily as she grew up - there was some tale in the family about him buying a house for her later on - however, when he married Jane he was starting to become a prominent figure in the town, he was on the council and eventually ended up as Mayor. Perhaps you are right - in the early days it may not have been seemly for him in his position to acknowledge Emily. But I'm lucky enough to know someone who actually knew him! My mam has a friend who is in her late 80s, who remembers him from when she was a child in the late 1920s/early 1930s, when he himself was an old man. She said he was a lovely man, so I'd prefer (with my rose coloured glasses on) to think that Emily didn't live with them simply because there wasn't enough room in the house with the other four children!


About 30 years ago I knew an old lady, who only learned when she was in her early twenties that the man she believed to be her much older brother (about 20 years older), was in fact her father. Until then she believed her paternal grandparents were her parents.

That must have been very difficult to deal with.

Janice

[Jan65]

First places to look are at the birth certificate and then parish record of baptism, either of these could potentially name the father (the latter is more likely)- have you checked these out?

Hi Paula - yes, I do have Emily's birth certificate and the father's name isn't listed unfortunately. Also, although I know exactly where she was born and I live in the local area, I have never been able to find a baptism, even though I've searched through all the local church records. Perhaps she wasn't baptised at all, or perhaps given the circumstances she was baptised in a church some distance away.

It fascinates me to think that the house where she was born in 1873 still exists, although it's now a Chinese herbal health shop! When I first found out where she was born, I went into the shop and told the people who were running it, hoping that they'd invite me for a look round the back premises and upstairs, but unfortunately they didn't take the hint. Probably thought I was some raving mad woman! Also, I'm not too sure they even understood what I was telling them!

I think I'll ask at my local archives office about bastardy bonds, or other such records, to see if I can discover anything that way.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Janice

[Peph]

Illegitimacy is without doubt THE most frustrating recurrent theme in this hobby of ours, since it was so shrouded in secrecy that very often the fact that a child was illegitimate was kept a secret, let alone the truth about the baby's parentage.

When I started on this genealogical road it was with one aim: to find, for my elderly mother, the truth about who her father's mother had been. He was 40 when he discovered that his recently deceased 'mother' had not been his mother at all, although his father really had been his father.

He discovered that, officially, he didn't exist: no birth registration...nothing.

I won't bore you with the details, but 70 years later, by doing what the experts on this forum have been recommending - trawling through Census details, street by street, in the name of a particular surname - I eventually narrowed down my great grandmother to one prime suspect.

I then spent the best part of another year trying to trace any female offspring of this woman's only daughter, and then HER daughter and so on. It turned out that in the next county to me there is a woman of my own age who I'm convinced shares with me this great grandmother. I contacted her and offered to pay for a DNA comparison - and she absolutely refused!

I know that had it been any subscriber to this wonderful website there'd have been no problem, but she's not interested, so I'll never be able to prove it.

I guess that sometimes we just have to admit defeat.

[Peter Goodey]

Janice
I would advise you to get hold of the book that I mentioned in the fourth message of this thread.

[Jan65]

Janice
I would advise you to get hold of the book that I mentioned in the fourth message of this thread.

Thanks Peter, I think I will try to get hold of it - trouble is the title puts me off, having a 9 year old curious daughter in the house I'm reluctant to have a book with that word in the title knowing the inevitable questions that will follow!

Janice

[benny1982]

Hi

I have had several illegitimacies in my family and only one has been successful in finding the father.

Many parents of illegitimate children moved away after the births because of the shame. If they planned to marry at a later date then the last thing they'd need is verbal bullying from local villagers or town/city street residents.

Ben

[Jan65]

It turned out that in the next county to me there is a woman of my own age who I'm convinced shares with me this great grandmother. I contacted her and offered to pay for a DNA comparison - and she absolutely refused!

To be honest, Peph, I can understand to a certain extent this woman's reluctance - it must be a bit daunting to have a complete stranger contact you out of the blue (if I've understood you correctly?) and try to establish a connection in this way. I think I would feel a bit uncomfortable myself, even though I can fully understand your frustration in trying to get to the truth. I think we must accept that some people are just not interested, in the same way that some people are absolutely passionate about football and others couldn't care less.

I do hope that you manage to get to the bottom of it all eventually - maybe there will be other relatives that you uncover who will share our enthusiasm and be willing to give it a go. Good luck!

Janice

[Peph]

Thank you, Janice. You're right, of course!

[Jan65]

I have had several illegitimacies in my family and only one has been successful in finding the father. Many parents of illegitimate children moved away after the births because of the shame. If they planned to marry at a later date then the last thing they'd need is verbal bullying from local villagers or town/city street residents.

Hi Ben

I think it's great that you have at least found one of the fathers!

The only thing I have to go on in this situation with Jane and Emily is that I'm reasonably sure that Jane's future husband, John, wasn't Emily's father. Given that he became a prominent figure in the town, he's mentioned in various local history books, and is recorded as first settling in here in 1875 - Emily being born two years previously in 1873.

However, who's to say that he hadn't visited briefly before this? So I can't be 100% sure. And the story that I was brought up with did say that this man had had an illegitimate child with his children's nanny - but I think this is just a Chinese whisper sort of story - maybe there was speculation at the time of his marriage that Emily was actually his daughter.

Also, that tale doesn't really add up, as I don't believe that Jane could have been his children's nanny at the time she became pregnant, because his first son wasn't born until 1876, three years later. Although she could have been the nanny later on of course.

What I personally think happened - and this is only my theory - is that John came to town as a young married man with a baby, settling just a few doors away from Jane, who would have been around 18 at the time, and her parents. Jane already had her child, Emily, who would have been around two years old. Jane's father was a Scottish baker, as was John himself, so there would have been a natural affinity between the two families - or even rivalry. As John's young family grew, perhaps his wife needed help with the children, and Emily stepped in as "nanny" or some sort of mother's help. When John's wife died in 1885, perhaps Jane carried on looking after the children who were still very young, and five years later in 1890, John and Jane married. Jane's daughter Emily by this time would have been around 16.

This is my pet theory as to how the story in my family evolved. Although there are a lot of "perhaps" and "ifs", I think it's the most likely and unless I can find proof that John was Emily's natural father, I'm sticking with it!

(This family story is actually the reason that I started tracing my family tree in the first place - that we were somehow related to this man, whose name is immortalised in the name of a building in our town and which has always fascinated me.)

Janice

[Jan65]

Thank you, Janice. You're right, of course!

Gosh Peph, it's not often I'm right! Didn't mean to sound sanctimonious, just trying to see it from the other person's point of view. (That's why I never win arguments!)

[benny1982]

Hi Janie

I suppose you have read my posts about the Roberts success as the parents wed just after the birth and was then baptised after the marriage. The initial illegitimacy was explained because the fathers wife had just died after a long wasting illness. Its obvious he was the father as his wifes terminal slow killing illness would have made him have an affair what with the stress so he found comfort in a 23 year old woman and got her pregnant.

Ben

[Jan65]

I suppose you have read my posts about the Roberts success ... Ben

Hi Ben - yes, it was fascinating! How did you know that they had fled to London? Was that where they married? How did you know that the other child was sent to live with an aunty?

[benny1982]

Hi

The baby was born on 31 Dec 1863 in Sussex. The parents wed in July 1864 in Stoke Newington London. The babe was baptised on 6th Nov 1864 in London.

Inbetween say Feb and May 1864 they fled to London. Obvious reasons.

In 1871 his eldest daughter was with her aunty in Bermondsey.

Ben

[Jan65]

Ah, that explains it!

[benny1982]

Hi

The timeline of events all explain everything. I wonder if the eldest daughter didnt approve or something.

They obviously moved to London to escape a scandal. And to protect their baby from the fact that she was the product of an extra marital affair and that her fathers wife died after much suffering while her mum was heavily pregnant. That clinches it.

Ben

[Oates]

I can understand someone lying about being a bastard on ther marriage certificate, however when the man she was marrying was also a bastard and made no attempt to list his own father on the marriage certificate, why should Janie worry about it enough to lie?

I have (I suspect) the same thing happening on my tree. The bride doesn't bother to list a father, but the groom does. I've found two possibilities in the censuses: the first is he was illegitimate, and his grandfather had the same name as the father he listed; the second is the names are correct but his birthplace is wrong on the 1901 census with his wife. I suspect it's the former in this case.

As for the name James, she may just have made it up. James could also be the christian name of her grandfather or an uncle.