RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Jomot on Wednesday 24 December 14 12:21 GMT (UK)
-
I have the 1877 birth certificate for a George William Barker whose parents are stated to be my GG Grandfather William Barker & his second wife, Alice Peacock. However, I'm as sure as I can be that George was really William's grandson & his mother was actually my Great Grandmother, Margaret Barker b 1857.
In 1882 Margaret Barker married George William Jackson.
In 1891 a George William Barker Jackson was baptised as the son of George William & Margaret Jackson. No age is given but what looks like "LMR" has been written in the margin. In the same year a 14-year old George William Jackson appears on the census as son of George William & Margaret Jackson. This is the first time he appears with them, having apparently been raised by Margaret's sister, who noted him as 'nephew' in the 1881 census.
He is still with them in 1901 but a few years later - just after the death of George William Snr - appears to drop the surname Jackson and move to Canada.
My question is, where do I put him on my tree? As the son of William & Alice per the birth certificate, or as the son of Margaret & George per the baptism, or as the son of Margaret & unknown father (I have not been able to place Margaret & George William Snr in the same location at the time that George William Jnr was conceived).
-
For the time being, I would put him where the birth cert places him. however if you have the facility on your family tree program, I would make a note of your supposition and what led you to that conclusion so that if more evidence turns up you can change where you place him.
-
Hi Jomot,
A confusing one although it does seem obvious but not quite as simple to relocate to the correct parents ;D
Thought Spidermonkeys advice was good!! 8)
Often illegitimate kids were brought up by the grandparents although usually/most cases, signed by the mother? :D
Just curious as to who is down as father on his marriage & death certs?
I had a g grandmother born illegitimately (surname Cullen as I eventually found out) but her mother brought her up under the fathers surname McCluskey.
She married my g grandfather by McCluskey & her maiden name was McCluskey on all her kids births & any other legal docs.
In 1871 my g grandmother aged 5yrs was in the household of her aunt & uncle with her father & what seemed to be her mother using the surname of her married sister of Caine/Kane/Kean?
In the same yr (1871) a marriage took place with the said McCluskey & Rose Ann (Caine) sic, giving her parent's as her older sis & brother-in-law, surname Kean???
Anyway, I won't confuse folks anymore...................that marriage McCluskey/Caine was not my gg grandmother (who was actually absent from the said 1871 census).........................
The marriage was Rose Ann Caine (my g grandmothers cousin)!!!
A case of "When the cat's away, the mice will play) !!! :(
That was a very confusing scenario in my novice days as I had assumed the Caine was a mistake for Cullen (her birth surname) but I loved untangling the truth, sad as it was although largely different from your case.
Annie
-
Just curious as to who is down as father on his marriage & death certs?
Unfortunately he never married and his Canadian death cert doesn't state next of kin. ::)
It appears he never lived with his 'birth certificate' parents, although the 1881 census shows they had a 10-year old grandson living with them whereas their supposed son 4-year-old son, George William, was living with Margaret's sister and was described as her Nephew.
He left for Canada when my gran (Margaret's youngest child) was only 2 and gran certainly never mentioned him when she was alive. I've also been in in contact with another Jackson descendent and they've never heard him spoken of in the family either so I'm really not sure where to go next.
-
No age is given but what looks like "LMR" has been written in the margin.
It would be interesting to know whether any other siblings were baptised at the same time & what "LMR" actually stands for? Legal/Legitimate - Mother - Registered?
You mention he moved to Canada when your gran was only 2...........................i.e. she would have NO recollection of him hence the reason he was never spoken of? :-\ as I think she was never told because of the "unmarried" circumstances?
Where was G W born. Was he born at the family home or was mum shipped off elsewhere (to a relatives home) to have him to save embarrassment?
An interesting story ;D
Annie.
-
Unfortunately he never married and his Canadian death cert doesn't state next of kin. ::)
[/quote]
Do you know if he had a will as this would possibly have valuable info.....................although maybe not as he appears to have severed ties for whatever reason?
Annie.
Added...............more likely he never felt wanted???
-
All of the other siblings were baptised shortly after birth. One other child has LMC written in the margin and he was baptised a few weeks after birth (1893). However, these copies were passed to me by a now deceased aunt so I need to make sure it wasn't her that wrote in the margins & then photocopied them! ::)
Yes my gran was only two, but her older sister - with whom she remained close - was 18 and none of her descendants has ever heard of him either.
According to his birth certificate George was born in a village called Arrathorne in the Leyburn Registration district (North Yorkshire) which is where Margaret grew up with her family, but as I'm not 100% certain of her whereabouts in 1871 (possibly Gateshead) its possible that he could have been born anywhere and then brought back to Arrathorne to be registered.
Looking for a will might be an idea - not really sure where to start for Canada but I shall see what I can find. I've ordered George William Snr's will but fully expect that will simply leave what little he had to Margaret.
-
Was Alice Peacock young enough to have had a child in 1877? My 2xGGparents brought up their illegitimate grandson as if he was their own, but my GGmother was in her 50s when he was born so couldn't have been his mother anyway, mind you this hasn't stopped some distant relatives listing as their son even when they've been told otherwise. I know he wasn't told the woman he believed to be his sister was actually his mother until the night before his wedding, which almost led to its cancellation. His birth certificate apparently (I've not seen a copy but was told by his granddaughter) lists a fictious father with his mother's surname and his mother listed with her mother's maiden name. They definitely told porkies on occasions when they didn't want to admit to things publically. ::)
Personally, as it would seem from the baptism and census that he was most likely Margaret's son, I'd place him as that but born before her marriage, until (and if) you can find anything to refute it. I wouldn't rely on the birth certificate as evidence as it appears to be incorrect from the other evidence. ;)
But that's just my personal view, I know others think differently.
-
I have a similar one with my great grandfather, his birth certificate says who his parents were as does his baptism record, BUT his mother married the "father" when great grandfather was 3 months old, she gave him an unusual middle name, years later I found my great great grandmothers sister had married a man with exactly the same first and last name as my great grandfathers given and middle name.
Great grandfather lived with his maternal grandparents from the age of 11 months, by the time he was 10 he had dropped his surname and taken his mother surname. I "know" his father was his aunts husband BUT I have no record proof, so I have put him in the tree according to written records, extensively researched who I think his real father is and written everything in notes of what I have found what conclusions and why I have come to those.
It was a shock to be in touch with a descendant of this man who sent me a photo of themselves and their father it was like looking at a twin brother of my grandfather and Uncle, who are identical to my great grandfather, so I really do think I am correct as I also have a photo of the man who is legally in written records my great great grandfather and he is soooooooo different, even researching his family doesn't 'feel' like my ancestors.
-
I "know" his father was his aunts husband BUT I have no record proof, so I have put him in the tree according to written records, extensively researched who I think his real father is and written everything in notes of what I have found what conclusions and why I have come to those.
That's the thing as a birth cert. is a legal doc even if they did tell porkies ;D
It's so frustrating when the evidence is pointing elsewhere but we can't change the law just because we think we know the truth ;D ;D
Annie.
-
You are so right Annie his primary records say one thing, he married twice and "his father" was alive for both marriages yet he doesn't write him on either of his marriage certs, even though the first church was the same one he was baptised in and to a family who had lived in that village for at least 700 years ( that I can document).
I have lots of other reasons/circumstances why I think what I do. BUT unless I go the DNA route( highly unlikely I would do that) there is nothing I can prove
-
Was Alice Peacock young enough to have had a child in 1877?
Alice would have been 39 and William 54 so theoretically Alice could have been the mother, but the other thing I'd almost forgotten is that although they married in 1864, just months after the death of William's first wife, I'm not aware of them having any children together except (allegedly) George in 1877. William and his first wife had 8 children and five of them would have been under the age of 10 when he married Alice so possibly a marriage of convenience?
-
I have a number of ancestors who married only a few months after their first spouse died, so yes I think a lot of the time it was a marriage of convenience. Particularly with husbands as they obviously needed someone to take care of their kids. :D Or am I just being cynical?
My Great Great Aunt was born illegitimately when my 2xGreat Grandfather had already been in a mental asylum for 9 years. There is no father's name on the birth certificate and I've not found a baptism for her, but interestingly on both of her marriage certificates she lists her mother's widowed lodger as her father. I always suspected he could have been because he was living with the family over three Census but had no proof. I think the marriage certificate says everything. In reality if she'd wanted to, she could probably have listed her mother's husband.
Another of my ancestors was also born illegitimately (as was her grandfather) and there is no father on the birth certificate. Four years after her birth, her mother married and we'd always listed her mother's husband as her step father. That is until we found her baptism at the age of two years while her mother was in the local workhouse awaiting the birth of another child. On the baptism, her mother gave her a middle name which was the same as her future husband's surname. When my ancestor married her "step father" was listed as her father, her middle name had become her surname and her birth surname as her middle name. He was also a witness to the marriage and signed the register. We're now fairly certain he probably was her father and also the father of the second child her mother had, who sadly was registered with no name as he died soon after the birth. While we can't prove it completely, it does look likely. Her father was several years younger than her mother and a carpenter. He was under 21 years old when both children were born, and its quite likely that they weren't allowed to marry as he may have been under a formal apprenticeship. Interestingly, they only actually married four months before the third child was born. ::)
While Annie is correct that the birth certificate is a legal document, there are known to be errors in them (I've one direct ancestor and an ancestor's sibling whose marriage certificates list an incorrect father's name and an ancestor's siblings birth certificate with the wrong mother's first name) and if other evidence points to who the correct parents were, personally I would add the child to the correct parents rather that the legal ones but, as iluleah has said, with some good notes as to why. But again, that is my personal view. :D
-
Thanks Smudwhisk
I too have several other illegitimacies with the child subsequently naming an entirely made up father on their marriage certificate, so I agree that whilst they are legal documents they aren't necessarily true.
Thinking it through, I haven't added these fictitious fathers to my tree even though the marriage certificate in theory has greater legal standing than the baptism record (the only record of some of these births), so on balance will probably go with the baptism & census records as you suggest and add him as Margaret's son pre-marriage.
For a family that now considers itself fine & upstanding it turns out we have more skeletons than closets ;D
-
While Annie is correct that the birth certificate is a legal document, there are known to be errors in them (I've one direct ancestor and an ancestor's sibling whose marriage certificates list an incorrect father's name and an ancestor's siblings birth certificate with the wrong mother's first name) and if other evidence points to who the correct parents were, personally I would add the child to the correct parents rather that the legal ones but, as iluleah has said, with some good notes as to why. But again, that is my personal view. :D
Civil records like any other can have errors. Personally I separate primary from secondary records. Yes people can lie, things can get written down wrong, especially when many couldn't read/write so they wouldn't have corrected an error they were unaware of.
However Primary records at the time or close to the time of the event are more likely to be true, such as a birth cert/ baptism record will show parents, dates of birth/baptism and place where this took place ( primary information) unless of course there was a deliberate lie being told. But a secondary records like a marriage cert ( primary with date,place of the marriage ONLY) all the rest of the information is secondary, such as fathers name, the couples ages.
I only know one great grandmothers age because of the primary baptism record which also has noted her date of birth, she married an older man and so pretended to be older than she was by some years, so each census she lied, on her marriage cert she lied, even my grandmother who registered her death registered her 12 years older than she really was and on their marriage cert it says bachelor/spinster, yet my great grandfather was married prior and had 6 children in that marriage 5 of which died and none of his second family knew anything about it...I know because I knew and spoke to my grandmother and all my great aunts /uncles and they hadn't a clue, it came as a shock to them all and somewhat of a shock to me as I thought they knew.
-
My grandmother was surprised to find her grandmother was 80 when she died. My 2xGGmother was somewhat economical with the truth as she was 6 years older than her husband. There isn't an age on her marriage certificate, but every census after she married has a number of years lopped off her age and her death certificate and memorial card both list the incorrect age. :-\ Ok, that's down to the informant, but I doubt any of them knew her correct age. :D
An ancestor's sibling's birth certificate lists his mother as Mary Ann Catherine, his baptism as Mary Ann Caroline. I originally purchased the certificate from the GRO, but the local Register Office confirmed the original entry does say Catherine. Her correct name was Mary Ann Caroline, which she was baptised as and which she married as. Similarly, another ancestor's half sibling's birth certificate has her mother's first name listed as Mary when in fact it was Elizabeth. The certificate is for the correct person, all other information is correct. Again, it could be an error in the GRO certificate, but that shows they can't always be relied upon. :-\
-
Do you know if he had a will as this would possibly have valuable info.....................although maybe not as he appears to have severed ties for whatever reason?
I have found his will surprisingly easily but as expected, no mention of his family. Everything was left to a Mrs Sarah Ferguson, who was also the informant on his death certificate.
However Primary records at the time or close to the time of the event are more likely to be true, such as a birth cert/ baptism record will show parents, dates of birth/baptism and place where this took place ( primary information) unless of course there was a deliberate lie being told.
My gut tells me his birth certificate was a deliberate lie and that the subsequent records (census & baptism) are more likely to be the truth. It's interesting that George left the UK shortly after George Snr died & I wonder if it was he (George Snr) that pushed for him to be 'legitimised', with Margaret still perhaps embarrassed by him?
Guess I'll just have to wait and see if George Snr's will throws anything up, and if not then go with whatever I believe to be true. Ultimately I guess its my record of my family and so long as I note why I've drawn the conclusions I have, then others who read it later can draw their own.
Many thanks for everyone's input - its been interesting reading about everyone else's muddled families :D
-
In my tree, I put something in the notes if there is an element of doubt about any information. It's a bit harder in your case, with unclear parentage, although as you say there is more evidence leaning one way than the other. As a neutral observer, I think the most telling piece is the census record when GW is described as a nephew.
It is interesting that he has the same combination of names as his "stepfather". A bit more investigation into GW senior's whereabouts at the time of GWs birth is warranted, even though you may never know for sure.
-
A bit more investigation into GW senior's whereabouts at the time of GWs birth is warranted
I thought so too but have my wicked suspicion he may have been up to no good (eating porridge) ? :-\ or with another woman? :-\
-
A bit more investigation into GW senior's whereabouts at the time of GWs birth is warranted
I thought so too but have my wicked suspicion he may have been up to no good (eating porridge) ? :-\ or with another woman? :-\
I wish I knew! In 1871 he was in Great Driffield, East Yorkshire with his father & sister Jane, but by 1881 was living in Thornaby on the Durham/North Yorkshire border with sister Dinah and her illegitimate son, who had been born in Sledmere (Nr Driffield) in 1875.
His sister Jane married in the neighbouring town of Stockton in 1877 - just two weeks before GW Jnr's birth - and was living next door. I have her marriage cert but none of the Jackson's were witnesses. ::)
The 1881 census states he was a widower but I haven't found any prior marriage, and when he married Margaret in 1882 he stated he was 35 and a bachelor. :-\
Added: I have death certificate for what may be GW's father, Robert, who died at 17 Thompson Street, Stockton in June 1873. The informant was George Jackson of the same address but it doesn't state any relationship so again, its somewhat inconclusive.
-
His sister Jane married in the neighbouring town of Stockton in 1877 - just two weeks before GW Jnr's birth - and was living next door. I have her marriage cert but none of the Jackson's were witnesses. ::)
[/quote]
Aaahhh...........Oooohhhhhh. Is it possible then that Jane was his legal mother but GW was born to sister Margaret's partner GW senior ??? ;D ;D ;D
Annie
-
Jane married in May 1877 and gave birth to a son in the Oct-Dec quarter of the same year so I think we can rule her out ;D
-
My question is, where do I put him on my tree? As the son of William & Alice per the birth certificate, or as the son of Margaret & George per the baptism, or as the son of Margaret & unknown father (I have not been able to place Margaret & George William Snr in the same location at the time that George William Jnr was conceived).
I would put him in all three places, since you have evidence for all 3 possibilities. Record what you know!
I don't know if your software allows this, but Gramps is very forgiving in this respect.
BugBear