Still unsure about Thomas Roberts.

[benny1982]

Hi

I did mention in the "Fave ancestor but was he a biological one" about my great, great grandmother who was born illegitimately and her mum wed Thomas Roberts just afterwards and the babe was the baptised as his and then bought up as his natural child. I believe he met her mum while his wife was very ill and dying.

Thomas wife and child from his previous marriage were buried at the parish expense but someone reckons that poor men were willing to take in someone elses child as theirs and even the baptism is of no significance as she reckons the church was under no obligation to record the correct father and that it merely states the man she was married to.

Help please as this has put all my confirmations that he was the father back into speculation again. If he wasnt the dad, then he wasnt a real ancestor then!!

Would a poor man take on another mans child and lie in church and baptise someone as his if it wasnt??

Ben

[arthurk]

Thomas wife and child from his previous marriage were buried at the parish expense but someone reckons that poor men were willing to take in someone elses child as theirs and even the baptism is of no significance as she reckons the church was under no obligation to record the correct father and that it merely states the man she was married to.

Just to recap for anyone who hasn't gone to look at the original thread: the child was born 31 Dec 1863; Thomas Roberts married the child's mother in July 1864, and the child was baptised 6 Nov 1864.

The dates are quite important, as they give some idea of what a register was recording - and at that time the usual form of baptism register had a column headed "Parents". In fact I don't think it's ever been the norm to record "Mother and her husband" - though people could say what they wanted, and in a busy parish where they were little known, they'd probably get away with it. And no doubt there were occasions where women said their husbands were the father when really they weren't.

So, the minister should have asked for the names of the parents, but whether he was given them is another matter.

I don't know about poor men taking on other people's children - I suppose they might if the woman was rich, but I'd want a bit more evidence before accepting this.

Arthur

[benny1982]

Hi Arthur I have PM'd you.

The child was baptised at the same church her parents wed so the vicars would have known if the baby was illegitimate wouldnt they?

[arthurk]

Presumably he realised the child was born before the marriage, though in a busy parish (it was in London, wasn't it?) there might have been different ministers conducting the ceremonies, and even if it was the same one, he might not have made the connection.

Just a thought - did Thomas Roberts leave a will? Since the child was illegitimate she wouldn't have automatically inherited anything from him unless she was named in a will.

Arthur
(PM to follow)

[benny1982]

Hi Arthur

Thomas did not leave a will. He died in poverty. It was sad as he was reliant on poor relief and was a poor shoeblack and soapboiler.

Ben

[arthurk]

Any poor law examinations etc then? Sometimes these give useful info about people's families.

Arthur

[benny1982]

Hi

I have sent you another PM.

When I was in Brighton last week, I looked at the Brighton Herald, Gazette and Sussex Observer and they are quite detailed as they weekly list Quarter Sessions and Court Orders and sueing cases across the county and can find no mention of Mary Ann Walder in any of them, so could that also be a clue that she was planning to wed the dad?

Ben

[benny1982]

With that evidence, I think the balance of probability is more that Thomas was the father. He definately knew Mary Ann Walder by the birth of her baby if they were engaged just a few months later. It seems likely they conducted an affair while his wife was dying.

As Jan1954 said, I am not sure he'd admit to paternity if he wasnt the dad.

[arthurk]

When I was in Brighton last week, I looked at the Brighton Herald, Gazette and Sussex Observer and they are quite detailed as they weekly list Quarter Sessions and Court Orders and sueing cases across the county and can find no mention of Mary Ann Walder in any of them, so could that also be a clue that she was planning to wed the dad?

Bastardy cases often did end up in Quarter Sessions etc, but the cases were brought by parish officials. Might there be anything in the Warninglid parish records (overseers' or churchwardens' papers etc)? Sometimes the threat of further action would have been enough to make a chap admit paternity, so the case wouldn't go to court.

I'm still pretty much of the opinion that Thomas would have been the father. It's also just occurred to me that if he was the father, his behaviour may well have caused a scandal in the village, so could that explain the move to London and anonymity?

Arthur

[benny1982]

Hi Arthur

Very good point. Havent thought of that. I did always wonder why they suddenly moved to London inbetween Jan and June 1864.

I have replied to your PM but I think you have helped put a query to rest and convinced me that Thomas was the father.

I mentioned in my PM that Esther was Thomas previous wife who died after a long illness when Mary Ann was 7 months pregnant with the baby.

Maybe Thomas was initially forced to admit paternity. He probably became a local celebrity when the villagers found he fathered a child with the wheelwrights daughter.

Ben

[benny1982]

Arthur, a few other members, my mum and cousin all reckon Thomas was the natural father.

99.9% of the evidence points to Thomas as being the father. When you weigh up all the dates, it was impossible for Thomas to wed his lover straight after his wife's death, one was out of respect, both for his wife and 12 year old daughter Ann, and both Thomas and his lover had to overcome 2 deaths(his wife/har grandfather), a birth (their baby), and the move to London and choosing a wedding church first. But they did it all within 8 months.

The timeline of events is

April 1863, Mary Ann Walder falls pregnant.
July/Aug 1863 she knows she is pregnant.
14 Nov 1863, The fathers wife Esther Roberts dies after some years of phthisis in Brighton.
Dec 1863, Thomas is taking time to grieve and sort out his house.
31 Dec 1863, Mary Ann Walder gives birth to her baby in Warninglid.
Jan 1864, Mary Ann's grandfather, (who she has lived in the same house all her life), John Walder is seriously ill with pneumonia and knee abscess.
28 Jan 1864, Mary Ann Walder registers her baby's birth.
31 Jan 1864, John Walder dies aged 73 in Warninglid.
Feb 1864, John Walder is buried.
Feb 1864, Mary Ann Walder stays at home to grieve and comfort her family after the death of her grandfather. Being the eldest child, she feels obliged to help comfort her family.
March/April 1864, Mary Ann moves to Stoke Newington in North London with Thomas and their baby (workwise, and probably Thos behaviour caused a scandal back in Warninglid)
Circa May 1864, they choose a church to marry at in Stoke Newington.
June 1864, Mary Ann Walder falls pregnant again.
June 1864, they apply to marry at West Hackney Church for a late July wedding.
July 1864, their banns are read.
25 July 1864, (a Monday) Thos Roberts and Mary Ann Walder marry.
September 1864, Mary Ann Roberts finds she is pregnant again.
November 1864, Mary Ann Kate Roberts is baptised aged 10 months "Daughter of Thomas & Mary Ann Roberts".
12 March 1865, Maria Alice Roberts is born.


I wonder if Thomas went to London first then Mary Ann joined him a few weeks later once he had got a dwelling and a job.