Possible illegitmate child?

[Iain]

Not sure if I am putting 2 nad 2 together and getting 5 !!

I have got a copy of a marriage certificate but the Fathers name is blank, only a line drawn through it. So has the Rank/profession of the spouse.

I am also struggling to find a birth record on FMP and Free BMD. Would this be a good indicator for illegitimacy?

Any advice would be helpful, as a beginner, this is the first time I have come accross this.

Thanks

Iain

[Jan1954]

I have got a copy of a marriage certificate but the Fathers name is blank, only a line drawn through it......Would this be a good indicator for illegitimacy? It may well be. However, there could be other reasons why the father's name is not recorded... a family falling-out, for instance.


I am also struggling to find a birth recordWhat is the name of the person that you are looking for and what is the approximate year and place of birth? Have you found them in any censuses at all?

Afterthought: Is it the person that you are searching for in this thread (http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php/72085-William-Hooker-born-circa-1844) or is it someone else?

[Iain]

Jan1954,

Thanks for responding. No it is from my Wifes side of my research.

Elizabeth Craddock. Age is 20 at the time of marriage which was 20th April 1891.

I think i found her in the 1881 census living with her mother and uncle in Rugeley Staffirdshire. Basically where all of my wifes ancestors come from. This record gives a birth year of 1872.

[Peter Goodey]

I assume the census entry in question is The National Archives; RG 12/2216 f 30 p 20

Have you considered these births?

Births Dec 1871
CRADDOCK Elizabeth Lichfield 6b 417

Births Sep 1873
Craddock Elizabeth Lichfield 6b 425

The first of these is consistent with the census return.

If I were you I would order the cert with the proviso that the mother's forename must be Ann.

[Peter Goodey]

Nope. You said 1881 so I suppose that is The National Archives; RG 11/2779 f 101 p 5

[Jan1954]

I think i found her in the 1881 census living with her mother and uncle in Rugeley Staffirdshire. Basically where all of my wifes ancestors come from. This record gives a birth year of 1872.The thing to remember is that the year of birth given in census transcriptions is not exact. They look at the age given in the census and take it away from the census year. Therefore, an age of 19 given for someone in 1881 = a birth year of 1872 as far as they are concerned. However, if the person in question was 19 at the time of the census but 20 later that year, then the year of birth would be 1871 - not 1872. (I hope that this makes sense.....)

Therefore....


Have you considered these births?

Births Dec 1871
CRADDOCK Elizabeth Lichfield 6b 417

Births Sep 1873
Craddock Elizabeth Lichfield 6b 425

The first of these is consistent with the census return.

If I were you I would order the cert with the proviso that the mother's forename must be Ann. I would certainly agree with Peter and order the first certiicate that he mentions here.

Good luck!

[benny1982]

Hi I agree with Jan. Iain did you get the 1881 census info from FamilySearch as when you type a name and find them on the 1881 on that site it will say ie John Bloggs aged 49 born 1832. That was just an estimate from the time it was electronically indexed. No original records give the year of birth. Hope this makes sense.

A baptism of Ann may list the putative father if the birth cert does not. You may find he was the flame haired milkman. ::wink::wink:

Sometimes you can find a father of a base child and other times you can have no luck. To me baptisms and bastardy orders are great hints. After 1834 bastard bonds ceased to exist so it became court involved due to the amendment of the Poor Law act. When you do find a father of a baseborn child at least you can say you have proved it beyond reasonable doubt. I dont think you can ever prove 100% the man who owned up was the father but 99.9% proof fi you find a court order or other record saying they admitted to it. There is still a very tiny realm of possibility they took the rap for someone. My great, great gran was born in 1863, parents wed in 1864 then she was baptised as the daughter of the mothers new husband (a servant) in the church they wed at. Turns out he was still wed when the babe was conceived and his previous wife had phthisis. And census records, school records and her marriage cert list Thos as her father. The baptism is the strongest evidence. With that I am 99.9% sure Thomas was the father. As these events happened long ago I dont think 100% proof can ever be achieved.

[Iain]

Jan, Benny & Peter,

Thanks for your input. I have ordered the certificate as suggested. However, checking census records again it would appear that Elizabeth went on to have a child out of wedlock !!!

So more digging there to be done.

[benny1982]

Let us know what the cert says so we can help you if needed.

Was she born in Ruegley? If so then that parish will be a starting point to find a baptism.

[Iain]

Jan, Benny and Peter,

I have received the birth certificate for Elizabeth Craddock, born 12th October 1871. No father is mentioned. The address is given only as Brereton, Rugeley.

Who/where should I now go with regards to a baptismal record?
Is it likely that since no father is mentioned on hte birth certificate he will also be omitted from the baptismal records?
Does this mean that Elizabeth is more than likely to have been illegitimate?

Amazing how many questions get thrown up as you delve deeper !!

Again any advice would be appreciated.

Kind regards

[Jan1954]

Jan, Benny and Peter,

I have received the birth certificate for Elizabeth Craddock, born 12th October 1871. No father is mentioned. The address is given only as Brereton, Rugeley. Good-oh! :smile5:


Who/where should I now go with regards to a baptismal record? Perhaps the Staffordshire County Records Office (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archon/searches/locresult_details.asp?LR=169) could be a starting point. Contact them to see if they have the parish records for both Brereton (St Michael's) as well as Rugeley (St Augustine) plus you will need to check the non-conformist registers (if they have them) for the Brereton Weslyan Chapel, if the Parish Registers cannot help. Arrange a day trip and take sandwiches.


Is it likely that since no father is mentioned on hte birth certificate he will also be omitted from the baptismal records? Not necessarily. You may have a Parish Clerk who is more diligent than most and makes little comments in the margin - such as "purported father being XXXX"


Does this mean that Elizabeth is more than likely to have been illegitimate? Oh, yes. :biggrin: in which case, you may find "My Ancestor was a Bastard (http://www.parishchest.com/index.php?cmd=viewproduct&cat=&id=P87687&pageOffset=0)" to be rather useful. :wink5:

[Peter Goodey]

Does this mean that Elizabeth is more than likely to have been illegitimate?

It's definite.

I'd recommend the book, too.

[Iain]

Jan, Peter,

Thanks for replying. I have ordered the book as recmmended.

Thanks for the link to the records office. I shall have to get there as soon as possible.

[benny1982]

Yes a baptism is the best bet and the book will guide you to looking up affiliation orders or court orders which may give a clue to a father.

[Nore]

Hi Iain, I'm new here too. My grandfathers birth certificate has a line through "father" and I know he was illegitimate. My greatgram was married to one man and had two sons with another man. Her husband refused to claim these boys. I am sorry to say I cant remember where I found the B.C.. I think it was through STS. and I am sure it was a free site.

[Iain]

Hi,

I have so far done all my research on line. I now realise that I have to go into the wider world. Do books give further advice of where to look?

[Jan1954]

The book that you have ordered will point you in the direction of where to look. There is nothing like sitting in a Records Office and holding original documents in your hands. :biggrin:

Remember - not all records are online and can be open to mistranscription. Originals are best.

[Iain]

Hi All,

Got a horrible feeling I have been chasing the wrong line.

How likely is it that dates could be 3-4 years out. My research on this line started with a 1911 census, which gives the head of the houshold age as 39. The marriage was given as 20 years. But when I check the ages on hte marriage certificate they do not tally with the census. They are about 5 years out.

???????

[Peter Goodey]

Got a horrible feeling I have been chasing the wrong line.

In that case you had better reassess where you are. I think you said this is your wife's line. Check that you have a full chain of BMD certificates from your wife back to the 1911 census entry and that everything hangs together.

Then let us know the 1911 census reference so that we can all look at it and come up with an opinion on what came before.

[Mona]

How likely is it that dates could be 3-4 years out.

That is not uncommon. Ages on census are not always accurate, people sometimes were not sure of their age. Also on marriage certificates ages can be wrong for various reasons... pretending to be older for instance if under the age of consent, an older partner wanting to appear younger.
My ggGrandmother stated she was 22 on her marriage but was only 18.
But double check all your info if you have any doubts.

[benny1982]

I wouldn't be put off by inconsistencies in ages of ancestors, ie 51 in 1861, 58 in 1871. Unlike today, ages weren't that important. And for reasons people could knock off years or add on years when marrying. When I first began genealogy I used to take ages at face value until I realised that ages were not as important and people were quite casual with their age.

[Iain]

Hi all,

Sorry for the delay in responding. I am certain of my starting point of the 1911 census. My Mother in Law can identify the whole family, including her mother, Elsie May Myatt. RG 14 Piece 16898 refers. Richard is aged 39 and Elizabeth is aged 37.

I have the marriage certificate for Richard and Elizabeth dated the 13th of April 1891, which has no fathers name for Elizabeth, hence my origianl question. Here Richard is aged 24 and Elizabeth is aged 20.

Elizabeth's birth certificate says she was born on the 12th of October 1871, which ties in with the age on hte marriage certificate.

Have I gone wwrong?

Thanks

[Mona]

In 1901 census Richard is age 31 and Elizabeth age 29 (which is exact going by her birth certificate). Looks like they both wanted to appear younger in 1911 :-)
RG13/2658/87/25