RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Topic started by: ClaireDC on Friday 25 March 22 17:35 GMT (UK)
-
Hi,
I was lucky enough to find the bastardy affiliation order in the local magistrates records for my illegitimate grandmother. Although not so lucky as it turned out - the man's name on it sent my research on a long wild goose chase until DNA testing revealed another man to have been her father!
To figure out what happened here, I really need to know whether this man was present in court for the hearing or not. It says on the court record:
name of defendant, age if known: [his name]
plea: denied
Would he have been present to enter a plea? It doesn't say his age which obviously he would have known so it made me wonder whether maybe he wasn't and this was just the info my great grandmother gave. Did men turn up for these? Was an absence just interpreted as plea denied? Any experience of these and any thoughts?
Thanks
-
When was the hearing?
-
Thanks, it was 1926.
-
He was a soldier.
-
its quite unusual to find them apparently .
can you post a clip of what you are finding hard to read or understand .
i have a certificate for my grandmother the birth father didnt contest but i always wondered who he had to pay his weekly payments to ..as grandma was fostered out
but thats diverging from subject ,
it was very hard to prove paternity .i think the system was different in england + scotland
im interested to know how court cases were decided if the father couldnt or wouldnt
attend ,
-
Trying to attach…
-
well done
what is the title of the document is it the order to appear or the judgement ?
I was able to ask the relevant records office for the actual affiliation order for my grandma but that was 1900 the 100 year rule may apply here .
but another tip is to find her baptism that may have fathers name included or not
(my grandmas baptism had different middle name from birth certificate ..with important clues )
-
This is the transcript
-
The middle name Brett is on my grandmother’s baptism. I made these discoveries a few years ago now and obviously thought her father was Michael Brett.
But since the advent of DNA testing I know he wasn’t! It was another soldier. So my great grandmother was either wrong in her accusation or I was wondering whether the actual father had given her another man’s name. This is why I want to understand whether Michael Brett attended court for this or not.
-
I don’t know whether it’s the order to appear or the judgement or both. What would the process have been at this time? It says the case was dismissed. I was told there was no further information or records.
-
We can only guess whether he attended or not as the case was dismissed was the baptism after or before the court date ?
Women sometimes added the father's birth name to increase chances of gaining recognition from the birth father . but why didn't she put it on birth certificate too ? ( My g grandma did it other way round removing middle name after she'd got the affiliation money )
Hopefully someone who has an example of a similar court case will come on this topic if they know whether the man attended or not in their case
Or if there was a newspaper report of the case ... unlikely !
I did hear of case where an American soldier used his best friend's name throughout his dalliance in WW2 and DNA proved the truth
-
My great grandmother both registered the birth and baptised her (both using the middle name Brett) AFTER the bastardy order was unsuccessful.
Thanks for your interest in it and help anyway. Your example about the American soldier is encouraging.
-
Relevant legislation in England:
Bastardy Law & Maintenance Amendment Act 1872
Affiliation Orders Acts 1914, 1918 (Questions asked in Parliament 10th Feb 1915 & 1st March 1915 in reference to soldiers)
Bastardy Act 1923
Soldiers - an affiliation cannot be enforced in the usual way but by the Army Act 1881 (amended 1883, 1891, 1915). Similar legislation for sailors in Royal Navy. (Source: article on Affiliation in Encyclopaedia Britannica vol. 1)
-
Thanks, yes I have ploughed through Hansard. Interesting how much of a problem there was with soldiers begetting illegitimate children. It did make me think that he had strong motivation to lie and give my great grandmother another man’s name - if his pay would have been docked and his wife would have found out!
-
Women sometimes added the father's birth name to increase chances of gaining recognition from the birth father . but why didn't she put it on birth certificate too ?
In 1926 the father of an illegitimate child had to attend the registration for his name to be added to the birth certificate.
-
His surname was used as my grandmother’s middle name when her birth was registered after the unsuccessful bastardy order.
-
Sorry to butt in but can you tell me where I would find such records as my grandfather was illigitimate and I have not a clue who his father would be. Might try looking in the area he was born but not a clue where to start.
Thank you
Jac
-
I paid a small fee at my local archives and they searched for it. It was in the local magistrates records. They were surprised to have found it as apparently it’s quite rare for them to still exist.
But as turned out in my case it was the DNA that revealed him. Your grandfather’s father will definitely be in your DNA somewhere if you take a test. Good luck!
-
Thanks I will get round to it at some point.
Jac
-
I also paid the archives to search for affiliation order I wouldn't have found it myself .the trainee was almost as excited as me to get it as it was the first she.d seen .
She helped me decipher the payments too
There was a medical payment as well as the weekly payments to be made and it had father's full name and address ...we only had the middle name clue to start with .
DNA has since confirmed Identity of my ggfather thru matches thru his sisters and ah half sister
-
So glad you got a good result
-
Women sometimes added the father's birth name to increase chances of gaining recognition from the birth father . but why didn't she put it on birth certificate too ?
In 1926 the father of an illegitimate child had to attend the registration for his name to be added to the birth certificate.
That was from 1874.
-
My nans birth father is not on the certificate his surname is put as her middle name
The father didnt and doesn't have to be present for that .
And I don't know if he was present at the court decision in 1900 for affiliation payments
But he made the medical payments
at the time & probably made the weekly payments for the first 6 years at least ..possibly to the foster parents
he continued to live nearby .non payment was an arrestable offence (as a foreigner that was doubly risky ! )
-
A brief minor update-
I had this response when I enquired at the archives:
I'm not sure whether a putative father would need to be present in the court hearing. He would have to be present to be named on the birth certificate, but my feeling is that he wouldn't need to be present in the court for a woman to bring her claim. I'm afraid I couldn't find an answer to whether he needed to be present in any of the secondary literature here.
But I am now trying someone else who knows more about the civil court process.
I just want to know if he was there or not!
-
Am just updating the thread with another reply I have now had from my local archives.
Thank you for your enquiry. The procedures relating to bastardy/illegitimacy cases changed over time, passing from the parish authorities to the civil courts. They were affected by specific legislation (some of which was introduced in the 1920s and later) and by general legislation, such as the Old and New Poor Law.
I can see why you have struggled to find the information you need, there seems to be a lot of information about pre-20th century illegitimacy cases/procedures, but not much about 20th century procedures. I have found a few links which are helpful (and explain things in plain English, rather than legal-ese!)
https://www.genguide.co.uk/source/bastardy-bonds-documents-parish-poor-law/
https://www.archives.norfolk.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/family-history/parishes-and-churches/illegitimacy
This paper may also be helpful: https://www.manchesterhive.com/view/9781784997441/9781784997441.00008.xml but it looks like you may need to pay for access to the full article.
For a more general context about illegitimacy, this book looks really interesting -https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/25/in-the-family-way-jane-robinson-shameful-history-illegitimacy , our library service has several copies: https://catalogue.exploreyork.org.uk/client/en_GB/default/search/results?qu=in+the+family+way&te=ILS.
There’s also this book. We do not have a copy, but it’s the kind of book that might be held by academic/specialist libraries:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/practice-orders-affiliation-proceedings-bastardy/dp/1240092083
I hope this information goes somewhat towards answering your question. Best of luck with your continued research.
-
Claire, I suggest you add the sources in reply 24 to RootsChat Reference Library which is under "Your Tools" at foot of the page, as other people may find them useful in future.
-
Having read the articles I am still not entirely sure where my bastardy record fits in to the process tbh! I think it MIGHT be my great grandmother applying for a bastardy order to be brought against him in which case he wasn’t present. Unless it’s after a bastardy order has been issued, and a warrant for him to appear before the court, and this is him in court and denying it. Hmmm still feels rather unclear… I have ordered a couple of the books!
-
Its a very interesting question that I never thought to ask .
I agre with maidenstone that it would be good to have those references on a permanent reference board
What a pleasant helpful person you found to communicate with at records office ..it sounds like they went out of their way to get you as much information as possible .
Enjoy reading up and let us know the conclusions .
-
Another update - the saga goes on! It seems the question of whether men were present at these bastardy hearings at this time is incredibly difficult to answer.
The helpful archivist with whom I was discussing this is now wondering whether putative fathers were actually present. There is a column entitled “Plea” in the court record and it says “denied” in my family’s case. The archivist looked at some other bastardy hearings either side of this one and some say “denied” and some say “admitted”. We therefore think the defendants must have been present to enter these pleas. Interestingly some denied ones are dismissed for want of corroborative evidence and some are adjudged to be the father and ordered to pay. Raises the question of what constituted convincing evidence I suppose!
I am still researching and reading - it’s very tricky to find any relevant secondary source material to explain how the court process for bastardy cases worked at this time.
The question is important to me because the answer potentially rules out the possibility of my grandmother’s real biological father using another soldier’s name (DNA has shown her father was NOT the man on the bastardy record).
-
To figure out what happened here, I really need to know whether this man was present in court for the hearing or not. It says on the court record:
name of defendant, age if known: [his name]
plea: denied
Would he have been present to enter a plea? It doesn't say his age which obviously he would have known so it made me wonder whether maybe he wasn't and this was just the info my great grandmother gave. Did men turn up for these? Was an absence just interpreted as plea denied? Any experience of these and any thoughts?
Was the plea the allegation by Keziah that Michael was the father of her child? The plea was denied for lack of evidence.
That's how I interpret it on a 2nd reading.
It's the first one I've seen for the time period. I only know about 19th century affiliation & maintenance orders. A 3xGGF was named as father of an illegitimate child in a petition to quarter sessions in 1823. He was ordered to pay a weekly amount for upkeep. Witness names on the petition were parish officials. He'd already been named as the baby's father in the baptism register. The child died when he was 7 and names of both parents were in the burial register. It was a small town and both parents belonged to families who'd lived there for centuries - everyone would have known everyone else's business.
-
The men’s names appear in the defendant column and the next column is for the plea - so I think that’s the plea the men entered. Some say denied and some admitted. I don’t think the women could have entered pleas for them in their absence - surely they would all say admitted?! The judgement is in another column, some dismissed and some granted.
I think it must have been easier for the women in earlier times when the parish was involved!
-
The men’s names appear in the defendant column and the next column is for the plea - so I think that’s the plea the men entered. Some say denied and some admitted. I don’t think the women could have entered pleas for them in their absence - surely they would all say admitted?! The judgement is in another column, some dismissed and some granted.
I think it must have been easier for the women in earlier times when the parish was involved!
Yes. I think that's right. He denied the offence. Previously I was understanding it as her petition (her pleading) was denied.
The charge was dismissed for lack of corroborating evidence. It was only her word against his.
Looking at the dates, the court hearing was only a couple of weeks after the child was born. If the alleged father was in the army he may not have been able to be present in court. Could he have entered his plea (his denial) by letter? Internal post in Britain was quick then. The summons and his reply may have taken only a few days if he was stationed in Britain. If he was abroad there would be no chance he could have been in court.
It may have been easier when it was the responsibility of the parish to chase up fathers before 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act. Apparently if they'd got to the stage of taking an alleged father to court, the onus was then on him to prove he couldn't have been the father. Legislators of the 1834 Act considered that the previous system wasn't fair to men.
-
Thanks for your reply. He was based in the same city at the time - my great grandmother lived about a mile up the road from his barracks! His regiment was posted abroad later that year but was definitely still there at the time of the hearing.
I read that some women brought witnesses with them. I think the corroborative evidence they needed must have been a witness account. There is actually a female name also on the court record underneath my great grandmother’s name - it was her neighbour. Maybe she brought her as a witness, not that it worked.