soldiers records and illegitimate children

[shelaghwootten]

Hi , I am new to this website although have been family historying for about 5 Years.I have been very lucky to find my Grandfathers ww1 service papers. He joined the army in 1911 and in part 13 particulars as to children there is the birth of a girl 1914 recorded "Illegitimate and adopted." The Scots guards Archivist also sent a certificate of registry of birth. I have followed up names etc and have found that this child was infact kept by her mother and not adopted. What I really need to know is why and under what circumstances was an illiegitimate child recorded on a soldiers record. Was it to get money etc . Who would have recorded it Father or mother or both? The twist in the tail is that my grandfather then married my grandmother 4 years later, but disappeared in Australia in 1922 never to be traced again. The mother of the child married a man from the same regement with the same surname different solder id and in 1926 the child was legitimized under the new legitimacy act. If the original record is true the girl would be my great Aunty,. Anyone out there able to give a clue as to how and why illegitimate children were registered on Serving soldiers papers. I would be so happy as have tried the National archive and long long trail without any answers.....here's hoping thanks Shelagh

[Geoffers]

Hi , I am new to this website although have been family historying for about 5 Years.I have been very lucky to find my Grandfathers ww1 service papers.

Welcome to the B-G forums and I'm glad you had some success in locating the service record which is a good basis to work on.

He joined the army in 1911 and in part 13 particulars as to children there is the birth of a girl 1914 recorded "Illegitimate and adopted." The Scots guards Archivist also sent a certificate of registry of birth. I have followed up names etc and have found that this child was infact kept by her mother and not adopted. What I really need to know is why and under what circumstances was an illiegitimate child recorded on a soldiers record.

I would imagine the reasons may vary.

Some would simply not record the fact.

Some would accept paternity - in the event of death this may possibly affect the widow's pension.

In this case I read it as the chap admitting to being a father, but the reference to child being adopted is a way of inferring that he has no more connection with her.

Who would have recorded it Father or mother or both?

Do you mean, who would have registred the birth? If the father was to be recorded then it needed both paretns to record the birth - see this web-site - look at the bit regarding the Registration Act 1875.

The mother of the child married a man from the same regiment with the same surname different solder id

Was this chap related to the father of the child?

[stevenpenny]

Hi,

This question was raised initially by the Government. The Hansard entry for 7th May 1883 records the following exchange:

Mr Sexton: - Asked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been drawn to the following statement in a letter from the Rev. F. W. Taylor, Chaplain of Maidstone Union, to the editor of the "Times":— "I speak from experience, and information, that on a low average the number of children unlawfully begotten by soldiers would be four in each 500 unions out of 632, thus giving a population of 2,000 illegitimate children annually, for the maintenance of which neither the mothers nor the ratepayers have any redress;" and, whether the Government will make any proposal to remedy the state of things described?

The Marquess of Hartington: - The writer of the letter in The Times would seem to have been unaware of a fact, which is no doubt well-known to the hon. Member, that, under the Army Act, a soldier is liable to a payment of 1s. 9d. a-week for the maintenance of an illegitimate child, and that in cases where the paternity is properly established, this payment is always enforced. After full consideration, it was decided that 3d. a-day was the utmost that a soldier's pay could bear.


Then, on the 5th of April 1922 Hansard records the following:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, Section 145 (3).)

In Section one hundred and forty-five, Subsection (3), of the Army Act (which relates to the liability of a soldier to maintain wife and children), at end of Sub-section, there shall be inserted the words "unless such soldier has in fact attended, or had sufficient opportunity to attend, the summons under which the process has been served at a date prior to the issue of such orders."—[Lieut.-Colonel Hurst.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Colonel Hurst: - I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time." I very much regret that this new Clause is not on the Paper to-day. It has been on the Paper for the last two days, but, by a misunderstanding, it has been struck out of the Paper to-day. Section 145 of the Army Act now provides that no process whatever shall be valid against a soldier of the Regular forces if served after such soldier is under orders for service beyond the seas. That has given rise to hardships to women, particularly the mothers of illegitimate children by soldiers, in consequence of the soldier being under orders for service overseas. There have been a few cases where a soldier has actually appeared in Court and fought the case, and had an order made against him for 5s. or so a week. He has gone back to his regiment, and then received orders for overseas, and the attempt to force an order made upon him is all nugatory, owing to Section 145. With a view to rectifying that injustice, and without in any way disturbing the real substratum of Section 145 (3), as it now stands, I move this new Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Henderson: - I beg to support the Clause. Although it is a very small point, it is a very important point to those concerned, and I do not think this would make any serious difference to the whole Clause as it stands. I hope, therefore, the Government will accept it.

Captain Bowyer: - I should like to say a word about this, because it has been till now the custom of the law of the country always to neglect the interests of the illegitimate child and the unmarried mother. Here is another case in a long line of cases, which has extended over about 350 years, and if Parliament is now, for the first time, going to deal with the question of illegitimacy, then a very good change in the law is going to be made. I hold in my hand now a definite case which has arisen within the last few weeks, and perhaps I might, without mentioning names, read out the message which was sent to the unfortunate mother who applied for an affiliation order. In this case the actual summons had been served, and the soldier was given leave by his commanding officer to attend the Court, and the order was made. She got this reply: "The attached Court Order against the above-named soldier in favour of (here was inserted the mother's name) is returned, as the man was under orders for service overseas when the Summons was served on him. Compulsory allotment is, therefore, not recoverable from the soldier." No case, I submit, could be stronger than that, because here the soldier was actually given leave by his commanding officer, and the only explanation that might arise is this. If there were a time of emergency, when no leave could be given to the soldier to attend the Court, then, I believe, the question would not arise; but if the soldier does attend the Court, and the order is made against him, I do submit that compulsory allotment should be recoverable.

Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward: - I think it is only a just proposition that has been made, if it be limited to the cases suggested, but I did not understand, when listening to the Amendment, that there was any limitation as to the process, so that any summons for any trivial thing might prevent a man going on service. Subject to proper safeguards in regard to that, I would lend my assistance to the appeal that has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend. A soldier himself, however, might commit some trivial offence for the purpose of evading foreign service. Subject to a provision of that description, it is a very good proposition.

Steve

[shelaghwootten]

Wow guys thanks for such a quick response.
OK a couple of more facts and questions. On the certificate of registry of birth that came with the service papers the child is named Ellen Mary Parker Nevin. Parker being the surname of my grandfather. On her first birth certificate 1914 no father is named but on the second one 1927 a J parker is named. This man did exist and was named John. However he is not related to my grandfather as all his siblings are recorded and moved to Australia 1913.

I have come across the Hansard info before but only the first bit.Is there any way I can find out if a summons was made on my grandfather. or any more info on how I could find out if he had an affiliation order or compulsory allotment against him.

All of this took place in Bethnal Green London and I have been lucky enough to trace the child and her family through their lives ...a visit to the local history library a couple of weekends ago gave me great census returns. My initial thoughts were that
a)either this is a very fortunate co-incidence for the mother
b) my grandfather assumed the identity of J Parker- Medal record cards show he existed but can access records yet as I think he was in the army after 1920
c) An error was made in recording the illegitimate birth and it was put on the wrong papers as the 2 men were in 1st scots Guards WHParker my grandfather soldier No 7914 and J Parker soldier no 7101. But I think the british army would be a little more correct about these matters!!!!!

As you appreciate i am trying to show that the child belongs without doubt to William my grandfather

Thanks again Shelagh

[Geoffers]

Going back to your first message:

Section 13 of the Military History Sheet - the third heading relates to date and place of baptism. Is there anything recorded here? If there is, I wonder if any additional detail is included in the church register?

As to your initial thoughts - either (a) it was a fortunate coincidence or (c) a clerical error was made seem likely.

[Peter Goodey]

on the second one 1927 a J parker is named

If this was a re-registration to take advantage of the Legitimacy Act, surely the named father must be the husband?

[Geoffers]

If this was a re-registration to take advantage of the Legitimacy Act, surely the named father must be the husband?

But then again, might the husband not be the actual father? - Just conveniently had the same surname and was happy to adopt the child as his own?

The twist in the tail is that my grandfather then married my grandmother 4 years later, but disappeared in Australia in 1922 never to be traced again. The mother of the child married a man from the same regement with the same surname different solder id and in 1926

From what you say, there was first a marriage to W H Parker about 1918, and a second marriage in 1926 to J Parker. The service record for W H Parker has a record that he was the father of an illegitimate child who was adopted.

Another possibility then springs to mind - had W H Parker fathered a child by another woman, and that child had been adopted?

At the time of the second marriage, what was the bride's marital status?

[shelaghwootten]

Hi everyone thanks for the interest. Section 13 on the service records show "illegitimate and adopted". However I have traced the child right up to 1939 and know she stayed with her mother.I can find no record of baptism so far. Its my understanding of the legitimacy act that it had to be the original father that married the mother and was then allowed to legitimize the child after 1926. However there is only the surname parker-no initial on the original registration doc and as there is no father on the birth cert I think they may have got around that issue. What is interesting to me is the timing and setting of the legitimization. The family were applying to move to one of the new slum clearance housing schemes in Bethnal green in 1927. There is a lot of press coverage and docs surrounding the particular Lenin Estate that they moved to due to a political Scandal. Any how I have seen minutes of the subhousing committee who were choosing people to move. Many were rejected but the Parker family were accepted as they had 4 children and 2 adults living in 1 room. I believe the legitimization of Ellen May was part of their attempt to move out of severe Poverty. In those circumstances they may have used it to aid their case and not needed to be 100% truthful. This is why Im trying to make the link between my grandfather and Ellen May

Thanks everyone any suggestions gratefully received Shelagh

[shelaghwootten]

Just to clarify WH Parker my grandfather did not marry the mother of the child Ellen May . the mother Sarah Nevin Married a John Parker of the first scots Guards in !919, WHParker married my grandmother in 1918 and emigrated to Aus 1920. The birth mother is definitely Sarah Nevin.

[Peter Goodey]

Just to clarify...

Thank you. Using real names always clarifies matters.

If I were you I'd search petty session records for an affiliation order. At at that time and place they would be called Police Courts, I think. Haven't looked at any catalogues - may be filed under Summary Jurisdiction. You need to know where the mother was living at the time.