RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: jupiter1 on Wednesday 20 January 16 07:11 GMT (UK)
-
What was my Mother ? Who am I ? what am I ?
A few surviving relations are still around so this post is couched in careful terms.
I am a 77 year old male.
My maternal grand mother born 1887 married in 1905 to Man no 1.
It is believed that this marriage was the result of a un wanted pregnancy.
The girl child died "very" young" and no records have been found.
She then conceived a daughter number 2 born 1909/Q4 by Man no 1.
However, they separated about 1907-8 when she returned to live at her mothers house with Man no 2, for this birth.
In the 1911 census they declared them selves as "married 4 years" presumably to cover for the daughter born in 1909/Q4 who they listed under Man no 2 surname.
This is not so as she was still married to Man no 1 and divorce was not available to "the working class" until about 1927.
She had another child by Man no 2 in 1911/Q1, (my mother).
She went on to marry Man no 2 in 1919/Q2 bigamously as Man no 1 was still living. He lived until 1943/Q3.
Searching the Divorce registers reveal no divorce was ever granted or issued.
All the above details have been verified by many family stories and the appropriate certificates and documents.
So, in genealogical / legal terms, What was my Mother ? Who am I ? What am I ?
-
What does your mother's birth certificate say about her parentage?
Blue
-
In legal terms, your mother, being the product of a bigamous de facto relationship, was illegitimate. You are the product of your mother and father; if they were married, then all is straight forward. If they were not married, then you too are illegitimate (legally). In this day and age however, it all gets a bit grey. ::)
-
What does your mother's birth certificate say about her parentage?
Father Man no 2: mother maternal grand mother born 1887
She was born 1911/Q1
Blue
-
In legal terms, your mother, being the product of a bigamous de facto relationship, was illegitimate. You are the product of your mother and father; if they were married, then all is straight forward. If they were not married, then you too are illegitimate (legally). In this day and age however, it all gets a bit grey. ::)
My mother and father were legally and properly married.
-
What does your mother's birth certificate say about her parentage?
Father Man no 2: mother maternal grand mother born 1887
She was born 1911/Q1
Blue
That refers to the birth index do you have your mother's birth certificate?
Blue
-
My mother and father were legally and properly married.
This is not so as she was still married to Man no 1 and divorce was not available to "the working class" until about 1927.
She had another child by Man no 2 in 1911/Q1, (my mother).
She went on to marry Man no 2 in 1919/Q2 bigamously as Man no 1 was still living. He lived until 1943/Q3.
Any bigamous marriage is not "legal and proper". It is technically illegal!
However, these things happened, as it was cheaper than divorce
-
I think the OP was referring to his parents' marriage as legal and proper. His mother was born out of a bigamous relationship, which doesn't affect her marriage or offspring (I think).
-
If you don't have the birth certificate of your mother, can you tell us if the birth index that you think is your mother's has man number one's surname, man number two's surname or your mother's surname?
If the father on the birth certificate is man number two and you believe that he was the real father although not married at the time then regardless of them being married or not, regardless of the fact that the birth is illegitimate, you have evidence of your mother's parentage in that birth certificate.
Blue
-
So, in genealogical / legal terms, What was my Mother ? Who am I ? What am I ?
You are legitimate. It doesn't matter what happened in previous generations - we're all descended from an illegitimate child somewhere along the line.
-
I have some similar stuff in my tree. I would suggest you write it up or document it whatever way you see fit using whatever stories and records that support your telling of your family history. It's up to you how you tell it or record it.
Blue
-
That's an interesting quandary you've got there, presumably neither she nor man.1 applied for a legal separation.
At that time, legally, the grandmother was still man No.1's "chattel" and thus legally any child she had would be considered to be his child.
Until comparatively recently any person who married bigamously where children were involved was hauled off to prison - her lucky stars must have been shining down on her.
-
I found out in my searching, that my grandmother married Man no 1 in 1899.
1903 a child born with No 1 surname BUT same surname for mother.
This was my great aunt.
I believe she was my grandfather's daughter.
Other children born received my grandfather's surname and my grandmother's proper maiden name.
In 1943 First man died in June quarter.
In 1943 my grandparents married in the same quarter.
They waited for forty years for grandma to be free to marry.
-
At that time, legally, the grandmother was still man No.1's "chattel" and thus legally any child she had would be considered to be his child.
This was the case here in North America and I was wondering if it was also the case in the UK.
In such cases, the grandmother's husband could have been required to pay child support for any child born while they were still married, and the children could be given the husband's surname.
But what surname appears on OP's mother's birth record? Grandmother's husband (the legal father) or grandmother's lover (the biological father)? Oops -- just reread the thread: grandmother's lover was listed as the daughter's father and so presumably the daughter was given her biological father's surname.
One of my sets of great-grandparents (in the US) separated but never divorced. They each went on to have pretend-marriages and children with subsequent "spouses." The children were given the surnames of the pretend-spouses. The surnames were legitimate but technically the children were not (although they didn't know it until years later when I showed up looking for great-granddad and great-grandma).
Interesting conundrum.
Best regards,
Josephine
-
If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like OP's mother would have been considered illegitimate in legal terms:
http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/legitimacyadoption/
-
I have a similar family in my tree. Sarah was married to husband, had two children. Lodger next door. Husband disappears and the next three children are born with the lodger surname given as their middle name. Husband still alive and living in Norfolk. Sarah marries Lodger lists herself as a widow. Two more children born who now have the surname of the lodger/ second husband.
These things happened quite often.
Regards panda
-
What does your mother's birth certificate say about her parentage?
born 31-3-1911 born Mile end, London: farther = man no 2:
mother = maternal Grnd mother under man no 2's surname
Sorry for slow reply.
Blue
-
What does your mother's birth certificate say about her parentage?
born 31-3-1911 born Mile end, London: farther = man no 2:
mother = maternal Grnd mother under man no 2's surname
Sorry for slow reply.
Blue
It appears then that they were presenting themselves as husband and wife so the child could be registered as legitimate and under the correct parents. They could also have both appeared on the certificate as an unmarried couple, included the father's details and both signed as informants as per the 1875 Registration Act. It would have been easier to just present the father's and mother's details as though they were married.
So according to the birth certificate your mother was legitimate. According to the marriage to man number 1 and the absence of death or divorce your mother was illegitimate. This does not confer on you either legitimacy or illegitimacy as it concerns your mother. In terms of family history it's a good thing that the real parents are on the birth certificate as it allows you to accurately trace your ancestral lines with both records and family stories as evidence.
I have an 1858 birth certificate where the parents were unmarried and the birth was registered as though they were married with father's details included. The parents married three months after the child's birth the father was probably away at sea around the time of the birth. I also have in my tree 20th century births being registered under man number 1's details who was still legally married to the mother but who had moved on relationship-wise and later two bigamous marriages.
Blue
-
My great grandmother was married with four children and then ran off with the lodger. She then gave birth again to my grandfather and put her second "husband" as the father. We will never confirm with DNA who the biological father of the child was and from timeline it could have been either of them, but thank goodness for the age of photography because my grandfather is the spitting image of her legal husband, hands down.
-
Yes I too have a photograph that is as good as a DNA Test in linking a son to a father. The real father was also a god father at the christening.
Blue
-
Yes I too have a photograph that is as good as a DNA Test in linking a son to a father. The real father was also a god father at the christening.
Blue
Thank you Blue and all you others for your assistance with this issue.
I did suspect that my mother would be considered illegitimate but was not sure about that or my status.
There are a total of 5 children involved, 1 other of them will also be illigitimate as well.
The other 3 will therefore be considered legitimate having been born of man no 1 within wedlock .
Many thanks to all.