RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Diablo on Sunday 29 March 09 08:27 BST (UK)
-
I got a birth certificate yesterday of my great grandfather born in 1885. His name is George Lathwell and his mother was Jane Lathwell. There was no father on the certificate. Looking through the census and other trees I found that she married someone 2 months after the said birth and they then had three children all with the surname of the newly married couple. This is something that is new to me. What assumptions would you come to bearing in mind the short period of time after the birth? Do I assume he was the father? Do I assume not because the mothers surname was carried on through the following generations? Would someone marry a person who just had a baby by someone else? Do I just not include the newly married males ancestors into my tree?
Regards
Martyn
-
Martyn, welcome to rootschat
It's a puzzle to me as I haven't had this one in my tree but just one comment- if she married only 2 months after the birth the man who was indeed the father one wonders why she didn't put his name on the birth cert.
Another comment- I have instances where a widower married soon after the death of wife #1 because he had kids who needed care..
Do you know anything about the man she married two months after the birth?
charlotte
-
Hi Martyn,
To be honest it's really only something you can guess about, but like Charlotte says why was he not on the birth cert if he was marrying the mother anyway? Maybe you should treat it like an adoption? put the man down as his step-father rather than father and then decide if you want to follow his line or not. My grandfather was illegitimate and his mother married when he was 4, I have put his stepfather's family in but only 2 generations.
Ange
-
Hi Martyn
Welcome to Roots Chat. :)
I don't know if there is a correct protocol for this kind of occurence but I have a similar situation.
One of my ancestors had a son a few months before she married, the son in the first census after his birth had her maiden surname, then for the one after that he took on his 'step father's name, then the last census before he married returned back to his original name. The step father is not named on his birth certificate, therefore I presume he is not the father - if he had been I would have thought 2 to 3 months previous to a marriage he would have been named.
In my case I feel this man was good enough to bring up this child, was part of his family although not by blood, and so I have included the rest of the family in my tree although made a note of the relationships.
Basically I feel it is your tree and you do what you feel happy doing. :)
I know different people will have different ideas on this, and will be interesting to see what others think.
I'm not quite sure which male ancestors on the last sentence you were meaning. If you mean your great grandfathers half brothers, again it is up to you really. If it was way back I would tend not to bother, but as it is quite recent in genealogy terms I would. Once again a matter of choice, they are still his mother's children.
Evie
-
Hi thanks for the welcome. I have no further information so I'm just mulling it over. Indeed if he was the real father why didn't he have his surname on the certificate. What I can prove is that later on he retained that surname which went down to my grandmother so I think I can assume he wasn't the father. I think if the time between the birth and marriage was say a year i could let it rest but it was two days short of two months! Can you imagine it? How did they have a relationship up to that point? She was pregnant for the period they had a relationship which makes me thing he was the father.
-
My welcome too Martyn
Certainly would make you think, I guess you would reason that if he chose to keep using the mother's surname you could assume her husband was not the father though with him being a baby I would have thought they would conveniently use the father's name in most cases.
My dad had his mother's surname, his parents married when he was 4 and when his mother was 20, the birth certificate was altered when he was 19 to the father's name and stamped 'under the legitimization act'. I believe he was using his father's name though up to that point.
:) mare
-
Hi again Martyn,
Ange's suggestion about entering the man as step father means you get him into the record, can add data as you come by it with noting sources etc and then if you do find he's the actual father later, you can alter his relationship in the program without too much chaos.
My guess is he's not the father but that's a guess.
what were the occupations of the man and woman concerned. .. and their gaes?
charlotte
-
Hi
Have you searched for a baptism Martyn? Was the child baptised after the mother married? A baptism is a strong piece of evidence if a man is named as father of an illegitimate child.
Was the man a widower when he married? If so, it is best to find out when his previous wife died. Could the reason for illegitimacy be he was still married when the mother was pregnant?
This does make you wonder if the man was the father but I personally think that the sooner the marriage after the birth, then the more likely that he was the father but as said, you maybe need to look for more evidence.
Did the child use the mothers husbands surname on the censuses?
Ben
-
An unmarried mother registering the birth of a child at that time could not put the name of the father unless he was present at the registration to sign. This was the case under the Registration Act of 1875.
http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/births.htm#COL4
So, he may have been the father and didn't attend the registration or he may not..
:-\
-
As a matter of pure curiosity, how would the registrar know if the mother was married ? If she was from out of town but gave birth there... or someone beside either the father of mother did the registration, anything could be said? ::)
charlotte
-
Hi
Before 1875 it is very rare that a father will appear on a birth cert of an illegitimate child, although there was noting to stop a woman naming him, but this was rare. After 1875 as Osprey said, he could only be named if he was present at the registration.
If a mother had an illegitimate baby, then married soon afterwards and the new husband was married into the pregnancy and only just lost his wife at the time of birth or just before, this is a good clue. As said, try a baptism. Some people lied to a registrar to pretend to be married, and with churches there maybe was a select few but not many people lied to a priest in a baptism. If he is named as the father on a baptism, then that will build up a good case for you.
Ben
-
Hi again,
Ben, do you know who was required to appear at the RO to enter the birth details? Before 1875, and after 1875?
How did the Reg. know if the child was illegitimate in say a big city such as Manchester where there would be no local knowledge involved?
charlotte
-
Hi
Normally the mother or father went along to register the birth of the baby. Although I did hear that in the early decades the registrar went round the district recording births and deaths.
Ben
-
So the Reg took the word of whoever appeared at the counter to make the reg. ::)
I have a birth cert 1866 where a female cousin went to register the baby's birth- no father named but presumably the mother was not well enough to do it. no father named.
charlotte
-
In rural areas, not sure if the same applied in cities, between 1837-1875 it was the responsibility of registrars to visit local areas within their sub-district to collect any births and deaths! No wonder so many births were unregistered. :o
-
Hi
Yes, as MaidMarion said it was the responsibility of the registrars to visit the local districts to collect information on births and deaths. If they visited the house of the mother, then the birth was probably registered there. I dont think the mother trotted to the office and registered the birth as a lot of people think. Only after 1875 did this change.
If the registrar visited the house of a mother who had an illegitimate child in say 1864, then if there were other families around to know then the mother probably had to tell the truth.
Ben
-
The rule applied everywhere. Registration was compulsory in the case of the Registrar. The onus was on him to collect births and deaths and he could be fined for failure to register them. In carrying out his duties the parents were compelled, under the Act to supply the information when asked.
The registrars also had an incentive to register as they were paid for the entries viz. for the first Twenty Entries of Births and Deaths in every Year which he shall have registered, whether the same be of Births or of Deaths indiscriminately, Two Shillings and Sixpence each, and One Shilling for every subsequent Entry of Births or Deaths in each Year.
In fact two registrars were jailed for fraudulent entries. In one case births and the other births and deaths.
Stan
-
As a matter of pure curiosity, how would the registrar know if the mother was married ? If she was from out of town but gave birth there... or someone beside either the father of mother did the registration, anything could be said? ::)
charlotte
They did not have to provide proof but it was a crime if they were found out.
From the 1836 Act. > XLI. And be it enacted, That every Person who shall wilfully make or cause to be made, for the Purpose of being inserted in any Register of Birth, Death, or Marriage, any false Statement touching any of the Particulars herein required to be known and registered, shall be subject to the same Pains and Penalties as if he were guilty of Perjury.
Two convictions for offences against the Registration Acts;
On the 6th March, 1917, xxxxx was charged at the Oldham Petty Sessions for having registered as the Birth of her own child that of the child of a woman with whom she lived. Defendant, who pleaded guilty, was fined £2.10s.
On the 2nd April, 1917, xxxxx was brought up for trial at the Liverpool Assizes charged with having committed perjury by registering the Birth of the child of another woman as that of her own child. Defendant was sentenced to Three Months' Imprisonment.
Stan
-
Hi
So if a birth took place in a village in say August 1866, then the registrar walked round each village and knocked on the doors of each house then took notes on any new births with his registrars book or did he walk round the villages another way than knocking on everyones doors?
Ben
-
As a matter of pure curiosity, how would the registrar know if the mother was married ? If she was from out of town but gave birth there... or someone beside either the father of mother did the registration, anything could be said? ::)
charlotte
The registrar would ask the informant for the mother's name and maiden name. If the informant then said something like 'Mary Jones, formerly Smith', the registrar would take it that she was married. Proof of a marriage would not be asked for.
If only one surname was given for the mother, it would be clear that she wasn't married.
-
Hi
So if a birth took place in a village in say August 1866, then the registrar walked round each village and knocked on the doors of each house then took notes on any new births with his registrars book or did he walk round the villages another way than knocking on everyones doors?
Ben
The registrar may have received information from the local clergy and/or midwife.
I queried about birth registration sometime ago via a FH magazine. I was very interested to know how my gt grandmother was able to get from a rural village into the local town which was a few miles away, especially after giving birth the very same day. :) :o ;)
-
Hi
I heard that the midwife often interrogated the mother during labour of an illegitimate child to name the father otherwise she would not help them deliver the baby. I suppose if he was known and she did name him then there probably wasnt a problem.
Ben
-
Hi Martyn,
Just a thought, if (or when) George marries, what does he write as "father" on his marriage certificate.
Ok, there may be no entry, but that has worked on one record for a member of my family tree!
Good luck Copperbeech5
-
Isn't it a fairly common occurance for people to bend the truth when entering marriage details, to avoid embarassment due to their illegitamacy :)
-
Hi
Illegitimacy did carry a stigma. Many people covered it up by pretending to be married on a birth certificate. Unmarried mothers made up totally fictitious fathers and using their mums maiden name as their maiden name.
That is why parents often moved away after the birth of an illegitimate child if they eventually planned to marry but couldnt. They quite often did it to avoid embarrassement and to protect the baby from knowing the truth. Many parents kept their children in the dark about their illegitimacy if one or more had been born before the marriage.
Ben
-
Thank you everyone for their input. I'm not ignoring you but I am waiting for some additional information and will get back with what I find out.
Martyn
-
I also had a similar situation with my grandmother on dads side. Her birth certifcate named her Mother as Georgina Purdie, with no father. Did some more digging, after I found grandmums marriage certificate stating her mother was deceased. Discovered Georgina had another illigitemate daughter 2 years later, then a few months after that married a man called Yeardly, although the second daughter remained as Purdie. It appeared that my grandmum was brought up by her grandparents and believed either that Georgina had died, or that she was a sister. As I couldn't ask my father since he died, and also his brothers were dead, I asked my mum, and she was struck dumb, as it appeared that nobody in my dads family knew.
Maybe the man who brought up your great grandfather was a gentleman who knew the situation and was prepared to do the best for him and his mother?
-
Hi
I have a slightly different case...where my GGG-grandfather was born 2 months before his mother married his father who was listed as his father on his birth cert. The child was registered with his father's name, even though he wasn't married. So if the father really was the father, and they were unmarried, it was most certainly possible for the baby to be registered under the father's name, and not as illigitimate.
In Ireland (where laws seems to be extremely old!), even today, when I had my two children, with my partner (we are not married), for me to register my partner as the father (even though I could name my children with his surname without him), he HAD to be present at the registration.
I think, if the baby is not registered with a name of a father, then the man that marries the mother is unlikely to be the father. There could have been all sorts of reasons why a man would marry a woman who had just had a baby...he could have been a friend of the family, even related to a degree, he could actually have been friends with the lady...there were decent men around then too!
Just thought I would add my ha'penny's worth :)
Daisy Loo
Ps. If the man took on the child from the age of a baby, and raised him as his own, isn't he every bit as much a father to him? So the man's ancestry could prove just as important as a biological father's would.
-
I think the other way, to be getting married to a woman so soon after a birth would indicate to me that he was the father of the child.
I can't find them in the records, or the censuses. Are they in Scotland?
-
In my case I feel this man was good enough to bring up this child, was part of his family, although not by blood, and so I have included the rest of the family in my tree although made a note of the relationships.
Evie
Ps. If the man took on the child from the age of a baby, and raised him as his own, isn't he every bit as much a father to him? So the man's ancestry could prove just as important as a biological father's would.
That was my thinking too.
Evie
-
I think the other way, to be getting married to a woman so soon after a birth would indicate to me that he was the father of the child.
I can't find them in the records, or the censuses. Are they in Scotland?
If that WAS the case, then why wouldn't the father make sure that he was registered as the father? Instead, giving the child a stigma, and a different name? I realize that maybe in some cases, the Registrar could have been "by the book" and not let them name the child after the father, but surely the father would have been named on the birth cert?
-
I can't find them in the records, or the censuses. Are they in Scotland?
There were only 2 marriages I could see in England in 1885 were at Hendon - possible Charles Mantle or a John Chase. The woman however was called Mary Jane Lathwell :-\
Unless as you say they were elsewhere other than England.
Evie
-
If that WAS the case, then why wouldn't the father make sure that he was registered as the father? Instead, giving the child a stigma, and a different name? I realize that maybe in some cases, the Registrar could have been "by the book" and not let them name the child after the father, but surely the father would have been named on the birth cert?
Since 1875 in England and Wales (I don't know the law on this in other countries), the father of a child born out of wedlock can not be named on the birth certificate unless he is present at the registration to give his consent to this. Some mothers partly got around this by giving the father's surname as a forename.
The child does not have a surname given on the birth certificate, there is a space only for the forename/s (this changed after 1969). Thus the child's name will be indexed on the GRO index under the mother's surname if she is unmarried. In a case where the father's name appears although he is not married to the mother, the child will appear in the index twice, once with each surname.
If the parents were unaware of the law about not naming the father, so that the father didn't go along to the registration, the child would be registered without the father's name, regardless of anyone's wishes. A later amendment to the registration is possible, but perhaps it didn't always seem important to the parents.
-
If that WAS the case, then why wouldn't the father make sure that he was registered as the father? Instead, giving the child a stigma, and a different name? I realize that maybe in some cases, the Registrar could have been "by the book" and not let them name the child after the father, but surely the father would have been named on the birth cert?
The child does not have a surname given on the birth certificate, there is a space only for the forename/s (this changed after 1969). Thus the child's name will be indexed on the GRO index under the mother's surname if she is unmarried. In a case where the father's name appears although he is not married to the mother, the child will appear in the index twice, once with each surname.
In the case I have (you are totally correct :)...no surname for baby never really took note!), James Barnett was born in early Dec 1843, the parents married late Jan 1844. On the birth cert, the mother's surname was BARNETT, formerly Cock...hence they must have lied to the Registrar.
-
Hi
I agree with Silvery here. I think if a man married a woman soon after having a baby then it is more likely he was the childs father. Normally you only married a woman with a baby if it was yours. If he said he was the dad then that is good enough, especially in a baptism. I am sceptical that there are many men who would admit paternity of another mans child. A few might, but not many I dont think. It is rare that the father appears on an illegitimate childs birth cert, whether or not he is known. If the mother was honest to the registrar about the illegitimacy and planned to marry the father then the registrar would still have probably noted the truth. There were many reasons for illegitimacy. If a man admitted paternity of an illegitimate child, then I think that is pretty conclusive. He was doing the right thing.
If the father was still married into the mothers pregnancy, then that is a strong suggestion as to why the baby was illegitimate.
Ben
-
Hi all
Thanks for your input on this problem. I obtained the marriage certificate of Frederick George Lathwell who married Miriam Perkins on 31 March 1907 in Hendon. On the marriage certificate the fathers name is George Lathwell deceased. If this is correct then on his birth certificate Jane Lathwell, his mother, is her married name and her maiden name is unknown(no father on the birth cert). I suppose there is a small chance they both had the same surname. So with that above and the birth certificate of Frederick George Lathwell b 15 April 1885 in Leighton Buzzard that is all I have to go on. I cannot find any trace of Jane Lathwell after this date but I can find George Lathwell in the census's of Hendon living with his parents(William Lewington & Emma) in the 1901 census and in the 1881 census. In the 1871 census he lived with his parents in Leighton Buzzard. I cannot find a marriage between George Lathwell and Jane either.
I have attached the certificates. (*)
Any help is appreciated.
(*) Moderator Comment: images deleted
-
Hi All,
I have a GRO certificate for the birth of an illegit baby girl in Salford, Manchester in 1853. The informant was not the mother, and no father's name is mentioned. The informant was simply the occupier. I have followed up on the occupier and it seems he was simply the landlord, and a married man with children. It took quite some time to find him as the address was one of those unfilmed 1851 water damaged census records for that part of Manchester.
I had not been aware that non family members could register births and this is the only non-family informant I have found on any of the many 19th century GRO certs in my tree!
I have no way of knowing if that 1st May 1853 birth of Mary Hartley HUNT, at 2 Roberts Court, Salford, Greengate, Manchester, daughter of Mary Hunt (no father's name, no father's occupation) and informed on 20th May 1853 by James Haslow, occupier of 2 Roberts Court Salford to the Registrar (surname of Hill I think, but illegible signature), actually refers to my Great Grandmother. But one day I will figure it out. Cheers, MA
-
This may be a bit late but I'm going to put my bit in as well. It seemed common for women to remarry as soon as possible after the death of a spouse, especially if she had children. I presume a woman with a child would have no means to support herself and her child and would have to accept whatever offer of marriage came along. Marriage would have been a necessity, not really the result of meeting someone and "falling in love".
My GG Grandmother married her second husband, a man 20 years or so older than her when she was 8 months pregnant with her third child who was given the surname of her first deceased husband. I guess the registrar knew that she was a widow and that the child was the first husbands.
I have noticed that in my family tree if a woman was widowed she seemed to remarry pretty quickly by todays standards. After all there were no widows pensions or single mothers benefits back then.
mum mum
-
Hi mum mum,
Yes, I agree about those widows with children re-marrying shortly after loss of husband. And, while that would help provide for that widow and her children, it also meant that the new husband had a 24 hour housekeeper, perhaps not just for himself, but also for his own children by an earlier marriage. Remember that there were many deaths of women at or around child-birth because medical science was not what it ought to have been.
Cheers, MA
-
Hi mum mum,
Yes, I agree about those widows with children re-marrying shortly after loss of husband. And, while that would help provide for that widow and her children, it also meant that the new husband had a 24 hour housekeeper, perhaps not just for himself, but also for his own children by an earlier marriage. Remember that there were many deaths of women at or around child-birth because medical science was not what it ought to have been.
Cheers, MA
I have a lovely tangle in my tree that unless you understand the family set up you would wonder who was who!
My Paternal gt-gt-grandad had 4 sons.
in 1891 - Shortly after the birth of the youngest his wife died leaving him with 4 sons under working age.
In 1892 he has a new wife, who then has 2 daughters.
In 1900 gt-grandad died, leaving a widow, 2 young daughters and 3 of his 4 sons (1 died in 1896)
1 daughter then died the year after in 1901 after the cencus
so by the 1901 Cencus I have my gt-grandad living with his step-mother, older (full) brother, and 2 half sisters ............plus his stepmums sister.
on the 1911 Cencus I have oldest brother as head of the house aged in his 36's, step mum aged 48, half sister aged 11 .............. and yet another of the step mums sisters !
I can only surmise that the oldest son took in the family including his brother, step mum, half sisters and his step mums sister (s) after the death of the father ....................... lol but anyone else looking at it would wonder what the heck was going on!
Where I was kind of going with this is this ..................... my gt-grandad was pretty much brought up by his step mum and his elder brother after both his natural parents died - he was very young when his mother died, and his dad re-married, so she would have been the only mother he remembered.................. my dad remembers him talking of her as his 'mum' - NO ONE in the family actually realised until I found out that his youngest sister was in fact his half sister .......so in respect of that she is in our family tree, and I have traced her family back 3 generations(lol I stumbled on a fantastic site that had loads of info on it)
(I have to admit this is partly out of curiosity - my dads MUMS side of the family came from the same small village in Shropshire so I am curious as to if both his parents lines were related in some way generations back - both his parents were born & brought up in Manchester.)
Gaille