RootsChat.Com

Apologies if my explanation is a bit confusing. In answer to all the questions.

1. There was a family rumour ("suggestion") that the mother on the baptism/birth certificate was not the real mother and that the true mother was this person's youngest sister.

2. The woman on the birth documents disappears after the birth. Never to be seen again in the records.

3. The child goes to live with the woman's eldest sister. The child is initially listed as a border in 1861 but in 1871 census is listed as a nephew.

4. The youngest sister (potential real mother) also lived with the eldest sister and also listed as a boarder. She dies a few days after the 1861 census and the child remains with the eldest sister until an adult.

5. All three women are known to be sisters as I have previous records of them all, both official and personal family records. There is a large age difference between the sisters, the eldest sister was born 1821, the second sister (the disappeared documented mother) born 1823 and the youngest sister (suspected mother) born 1838. There are other siblings as well hence the age range but these are not relevant to the story.

6. The woman recorded as the mother on the birth records, was 33 yo at the time.

As I previously said this was just a family rumour. I asked the question if it was legal to have someone listed on the birth certificates as the mother when they were not. The consensus of opinion is that it is illegal, which is what I thought. The comments made by Stanwix England are valid and it is more than likely one of those outcomes is the true story.

Thanks 

Hi Gadget,

Just did what you said and it came up with a 91-100% range!

When I first did my tests I was expecting some southern European in the mix because as a family we have a bit of a latin look about us. So surprised to get such high Welsh numbers.

100%Gog

Hi,

I think you are right with the 1930's date as it fits in with the records I have for the farms at Cilmelyn.

There were two farms both of which carried the name Cilmelyn. One was just called Cilmelyn and was with the Owen family (my family) and the other was Cilmelyn (Ysgubor Wen) which was the Williams family (your family).

I have a record from the 1939 register which shows a Hugh and Gwladys Williams and a John K Williams living at Cilmelyn (Ysgubor Wen). Hugh Williams is recorded as a Butcher and John K Williams is recorded as being at school at the time.

As I have said in earlier posts both farms have now gone and replaced by Ysbyty Gwynedd.

100%Gog

my tree is private but not because I wont share Iin fact most of my photos etc are available on public trees because I have shared them ...........I usually talk to owner before copying to see what relation we are and then I can share info...................what you have to remember is that when you have a public tree on Ancestry if there is a connection even to a private tree it will come up in the Hints and so it isn't that the person with the private tree has just taken your photos etc but been offered them by Ancestry themselves.

To be honest my gripe is not so much the photos are copied its that I receive no acknowledgement or interaction from these people. I think its more of a courtesy thing really.

Private it is then!

Thanks

Thanks for the links Sandra, some interesting observations and comments.

Maybe I need to keep my cards or photos and documents in my case , closer to my chest.

100%Gog