Thomas Wiles/Jenkins

[noytd]

My great grandfathers brother was Thomas Jenkins (1865-1918). For a long time I searched in vain for a record of his birth. One major problem was inaccuracies on his census entries - he always listed different locations (usually places where he had lived during his life - ironically none turned out to be his true birthplace). Anyway, I stumbled upon the following.

Through his railway records I discovered that he was born on the 2 January 1865. Using his mother's maiden name I found his birth certificate. He was born in Eardisland and nobody is named as the father. His mother married Charles Jenkins in Eardisland on the 11 May 1865. From the 1871 census onwards he is down as Thomas Jenkins, even on his death certificate. So I assumed that he was indeed the son of Charles Jenkins.

However, I next discovered that Thomas wasn't christened until the 26 November 1865. He was christened in Marden, which was the longtime home of the family of Charles Jenkins. For some reason he was christened as Thomas Wiles the son of Ann Wiles. At this time Ann was married to Charles Jenkins. Between then and September 1866, the young family had relocated many miles away in Ruthin, Denbighshire. Thomas never married, so there is no marriage certificate to check up on who he believed his father was.

So I was wondering if anybody had any opinion as to whether Charles Jenkins was likely the father or not? Why was Ann not using her married name for the christening (was this normal practice at the time?)?

[Jellylegs]

If he was mine, his birth being registered in the name of WILES with no father listed and being christened in the name of WILES, son of Ann WILES after his mother's marriage to Charles JENKINS, then I would would say that Charles JENKINS was not his father.

[Jan1954]

If he was mine, his birth being registered in the name of WILES with no father listed and being christened in the name of WILES, son of Ann WILES after his mother's marriage to Charles JENKINS, then I would would say that Charles JENKINS was not his father.Sorry, Jellylegs, but I disagree. I think that it could well be a possibility, especially as Ann and Charles married just 4 months after the birth of Thomas and the baptism took place in Charles' home town/village.

I also base this on events in my own family:

Ann COWLING was born 27th May 1855 and her birth certificate shows her just as the daughter of Lydia COWLING - no father mentioned.
Lydia married John Webb MASCALL on 16th December of that year, 7 months later.
Ann was baptised in that same church on 25th December, 9 days after the wedding, and recorded as Ann COWLING, the baseborn child of Lydia COWLING.

But, I am pretty certain that Ann was the daughter of John MASCALL as she was given the middle name of MASKELL (sic) on her birth certificate. :wink5:

[CanadianCousin]

Why was Ann not using her married name for the christening (was this normal practice at the time?)?
My guess is that the vicar knew the circumstances of the birth and decided to enter it that way. Many (most?) ministers strongly disapproved of unmarried women having children and were not shy about recording the fact. As for whether Charles was Thomas' biological father, in the absence of other evidence - such as a bastardy bond or a note in the baptism register - I doubt there's any way of knowing with certainty. However, he was presumably the only father that Thomas ever knew and the man who raised him, and personally I think that's good enough reason to record him as such in your family tree.

Tim

[Peter Goodey]

Thomas never married, so there is no marriage certificate to check up on who he believed his father was.

If he had married, I have little doubt that the certificate would have shown his father as Charles Jenkins but that would tell you nothing about his biological father. I would follow Tim's advice if I were you.

[noytd]

Many thanks for the replies. Since finding out about his illegitimate birth I have often wondered whether he would have known about his illegitimate birth. That shall likely remain a mystery, but he does seem to have been relatively close to his siblings. So I do like to think that he was Charles's son.