RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Maggyanne1950 on Friday 15 January 16 15:46 GMT (UK)
-
When tracing someone in parish records at the Notts archive, I discovered that the family had 3 legitimate children, followed by 3 recorded as illegitimate, in 1806, 1808, and 1815. There were many baptisms recorded as illegitimate; possibly up to 35% of records. This seem excessive when the national average is around 7%. I was wondering if the father may have been caught up in the Napoleonic wars and therefore away from home. Has anyone else encountered this situation? Was it normal for the father to be present at the baptism and a no show just taken as no proof of paternity?
I have tried all sorts of angles on the internet to discover a reason for this, but I cannot believe that the population of Newark had that many more illegitimate children than anywhere else. If they are genuinely illegitimate, it certainly adds an interesting new dimension to my family tree :)
-
That certainly is unusual to have illegitimate children AFTER legitimate ones. Are you saying the father is named on the first three, but not the other three?
-
Maggyann states:
"I cannot believe that the population of Newark had that many more illegitimate children than anywhere else."
Nor can I.
From Nottinghamshire Family History Society Transcriptions.
Newark
1806 212 Baptisms 7 without fathers' names
1808 236 Baptisms 17 without fathers' names
1809 238 Baptisms 9 without fathers' names
1815 285 Baptisms 7 without fathers' names
1808 is higher than the other years but nowhere near 35%.
Venelow
Canada
-
When tracing someone in parish records at the Notts archive, I discovered that the family had 3 legitimate children, followed by 3 recorded as illegitimate, in 1806, 1808, and 1815. There were many baptisms recorded as illegitimate; possibly up to 35% of records. This seem excessive when the national average is around 7%. I was wondering if the father may have been caught up in the Napoleonic wars and therefore away from home. Has anyone else encountered this situation? Was it normal for the father to be present at the baptism and a no show just taken as no proof of paternity?
I have tried all sorts of angles on the internet to discover a reason for this, but I cannot believe that the population of Newark had that many more illegitimate children than anywhere else. If they are genuinely illegitimate, it certainly adds an interesting new dimension to my family tree :)
Were you looking at the original records or transcripts of the records?
If transcripts perhaps the transcriber assummed if no father was shown the child was illegitimate, clerics normally made it clear whther the child was illegitimate or not.
I would add if the fathers were away at war it is very doubtful that any children their wives had would be legitimate as there would be little if any chance of home leave at that time.
Cheers
Guy
-
Like Guy says, seeing the actual registers will tell you a lot more than the transcription. (Sometimes blatantly using the word bastard, sometimes a little more polite!)
Often in the 1700s only the father's name was mentioned, or the wife wasn't explicitly named (e.g. John the son of Thomas Smith and his wife). I've not yet seen a case of only the mother being named, except when the child is illegitimate. And by the early 1800s both parents (if known) were usually mentioned by name. However, there was no standard form for recording baptisms like post-1813, so the cleric was free to record it in any way they liked. It's worth looking at how other baptisms were recorded around that time to compare.
-
Like Guy says, seeing the actual registers will tell you a lot more than the transcription. (Sometimes blatantly using the word bastard, sometimes a little more polite!)
Please don't think using the word bastard was not being polite.
That was the correct legal description of a person born out of wedlock and far more polite than calling someone illegitimate which in reality means they are not allowed according to rule or law; which questions their right to exist at all.
-
Like Guy says, seeing the actual registers will tell you a lot more than the transcription. (Sometimes blatantly using the word bastard, sometimes a little more polite!)
Please don't think using the word bastard was not being polite.
That was the correct legal description of a person born out of wedlock and far more polite than calling someone illegitimate which in reality means they are not allowed according to rule or law; which questions their right to exist at all.
I meant polite by today's standards... if a vicar used that word in a baptism today there would be uproar!
-
Thank you all for your replies. I found my ancester Ann Addis.on line(freereg), with only the mother, Elizabeth) named. I wanted to find more of the family, so went to view the microfiche at Nottingham. I found the 3 children mentioned with the word illegitimate written in the book. The mother has the same name as a mother with 3 legitimate earlier children and a father named as William. The other 3 were born in 1778, 1800 and 1802. As the father seemed to be absent after the 1802 baptism, I guessed that maybe he was called to the militia to defend the country. Information is sketchy. Apparently it was thought that england may be invaded, so I surmised that he may be based in the UK rather than abroad, hence potentially home leave. I have read that an allowance was paid to wives. However, I guess that if she had little or no income, maybe she opted to live with another man. I looked in many registers, but the word illegitimate occured very frequently in this parish at this time. There were records available of cases of fathers being persued for payment within the record office, but I did not have time to search them. Perhaps that should be my next course of action, when I am able to get there again. At the moment, I am just guessing at scenarios. If anyone has any better ideas, please let me know.
-
PS I have an acquaintance whose grandfather had the description "Bastard son of ......" on his grave stone.
I also mentioned the Lincolnshire Bastardy courts in a family history group meeting about illegitimacy, last year, which was recieved with a mixture of stunned silence and suppressed sniggers.
It is strange how words go in and out of common usage.
-
I think usually fathers probably did attend the baptisms, if they were in a relationship or married to the mother but if a mother took her illegitimate baby to baptism, and the father was not around she would often name the reputed father.
-
I think usually fathers probably did attend the baptisms, if they were in a relationship or married to the mother but if a mother took her illegitimate baby to baptism, and the father was not around she would often name the reputed father.
But..... if the father/husband was away for a lengthy period of time and did not/was unable to attend the baptism, could this be taken as denial of paternity? It's just that I have not encountered this type of illegitamacy; ie 3 babies legit. and 3 not, following after. Another option (other than army) is that he was a waterman on the trent canal. If he was away a lot and did not attend church when home, what might "the church" assume about him? I can understand the situation of illegitamacy in the unmarried, but this lady appears to be married and I cannot trace hubby's death.
-
On a lighter note, the baptism records relating to one family in my tree had the odd comments attached by the vicar, one being "his forth wife" and another "his twenty first living child" no such comment for his twenty forth though at the age of 71+ :)
I also have a copy of a court order for another family member to pay for the upkeep of his bastard child, six pounds and seventeen shillings, then two shillings and six pence weekly "for and towards the keeping, sustentation, and maintenance of the said bastard child, for and during so long time as the said bastard child shall be chargeable to the said parish of Ringwood." They also ordered the mother to pay sixpence weekly for the same period.
This was in 1829, a lot of money even then.
-
Maggyanne
I see that there is a three year gap between one set of children and the three illegitimate ones. It is possible there was a split between the husband and wife. They may have both taken up with new partners and were not able to marry because they cannot be divorced. If that is the case the children of the new union will be baptized in their mother's name which is her married one.
Possibly you might find a remarriage after one of them died.
Other explanations could be:
Desertion by her husband and she has found a new partner.
You have not found his death.
Possible reasons are:
He died in another part of the country.
He died at sea.
He met with an accident and his body was not identified.
Alternatively are you sure that the mother of the illegitimate children is the same person that married the father of the legitimate children? The first couple could have moved away from Newark and another woman with the same name started having illegitimate children baptized in Newark.
Can you find the legitimate children linked to the illegitimate children? Marriage witnesses for example. Or mentioned in a Will. Do any of the illegitimate ones marry after July 1st 1837? Do they give a father's name?
Just some thoughts.
Venelow
Canada
-
Thank you all for your interesting and helpful replies. Venelow, thanks, I will persue those lines of enquiry. I think another trip to Nottingham may be needed.
-
Are those dates right? They don't look like they could be kids of a single woman. Especially the earliest.
1778, 1800, 1802, 1806, 1808, and 1815
I could believe 1800 through 1815 as children born to a woman who was later widowed, abandoned, or otherwise separated from her husband sometime 1802-1805.
-
Could it just be a case of two different mothers who share the same name? One married with a husband and 3 legitimate children, the other not married with 3 illegitimate children.
She could even be the sister of the married woman's husband or at least a cousin or some relative.
In some of the places I am looking in Cheshire there seem to be many people with the same names or variations thereof. They were very unimaginative with their christian names and I have a bit of a nightmare trying to reconstruct families trying to find my ancestor. :-\
-
Sorry Jorose, that's a typo. Should be 1798.
Re the possibility of two mothers, I need to look more closely at this family, to see if I can trace the husband's siblings. He is not readily traceable up to now. I have noted all the suggestions and think that I need to plan another trip. Unfortunately, the Newark marriages are missing for this era, and they have used Phillimore to fill the gap. All the interesting bits such as witnesses are absent.
At least I now have ideas to persue, thank you all.