What do you think?

[Diablo]

I got a birth certificate yesterday of my great grandfather born in 1885.  His name is George Lathwell and his mother was Jane Lathwell.  There was no father on the certificate.  Looking through the census and other trees I found that she married someone 2 months after the said birth and they then had three children all with the surname of the newly married couple.  This is something that is new to me.  What assumptions would you come to bearing in mind the short period of time after the birth?  Do I assume he was the father?  Do I assume not because the mothers surname was carried on through the following generations?  Would someone marry a person who just had a baby by someone else?  Do I just not include the newly married males ancestors into my tree? 

Regards


Martyn

[charlotteCH]

Martyn, welcome to rootschat

It's a puzzle to me as I haven't had this one in my tree but just one comment- if she married only 2 months after the birth the man who was indeed the father one wonders why she didn't put his name on the birth cert.

Another comment- I have instances where a widower married soon after the death of wife #1 because he had kids who needed care..
 Do you know anything about the man she married two months after the birth?

charlotte

[ange]

Hi Martyn,

To be honest it's really only something you can guess about, but like Charlotte says why was he not on the birth cert if he was marrying the mother anyway? Maybe you should treat it like an adoption? put the man down as his step-father rather than father and then decide if you want to follow his line or not. My grandfather was illegitimate and his mother married when he was 4, I have put his stepfather's family in but only 2 generations.

Ange

[Evie]

Hi Martyn

Welcome to Roots Chat.

I don't know if there is a correct protocol for this kind of occurence but I have a similar situation.

One of my ancestors had a son a few months before she married, the son in the first census after his birth had her maiden surname, then for the one after that he took on his 'step father's name, then the last census before he married returned back to his original name. The step father is not named on his birth certificate, therefore I presume he is not the father - if he had been I would have thought 2 to 3 months previous to a marriage he would have been named.

In my case I feel this man was good enough to bring up this child, was part of his family although not by blood, and so I have included the rest of the family in my tree although made a note of the relationships.

Basically I feel it is your tree and you do what you feel happy doing.

I know different people will have different ideas on this, and will be interesting to see what others think.

I'm not quite sure which male ancestors on the last sentence you were meaning. If you mean your great grandfathers half brothers, again it is up to you really. If it was way back I would tend not to bother, but as it is quite recent in genealogy terms I would. Once again a matter of choice, they are still his mother's children.

Evie

[Diablo]

Hi thanks for the welcome.  I have no further information so I'm just mulling it over.  Indeed if he was the real father why didn't he have his surname on the certificate.  What I can prove is that later on he retained that surname which went down to my grandmother so I think I can assume he wasn't the father.  I think if the time between the birth and marriage was say a year i could let it rest but it was two days short of two months!  Can you imagine it? How did they have a relationship up to that point?  She was pregnant for the period they had a relationship which makes me thing he was the father.

[mare]

My welcome too Martyn

Certainly would make you think, I guess you would reason that if he chose to keep using the mother's surname you could assume her husband was not the father though with him being a baby I would have thought they would conveniently use the father's name in most cases.

My dad had his mother's surname, his parents married when he was 4 and when his mother was 20, the birth certificate was altered when he was 19 to the father's name and stamped  'under the legitimization act'. I believe he was using his father's name though up to that point.

  mare

[charlotteCH]

Hi again Martyn,

Ange's suggestion about entering the man as step father means you get him into the record, can add data as you come by it with noting sources etc and then if you do find he's the actual father later, you can alter his relationship in the program without too much chaos.

My guess is he's not the father but that's a guess.

what were the occupations of the man and woman concerned. .. and their gaes?

charlotte

[coombs]

Hi

Have you searched for a baptism Martyn? Was the child baptised after the mother married? A baptism is a strong piece of evidence if a man is named as father of an illegitimate child.

Was the man a widower when he married? If so, it is best to find out when his previous wife died. Could the reason for illegitimacy be he was still married when the mother was pregnant?

This does make you wonder if the man was the father but I personally think that the sooner the marriage after the birth, then the more likely that he was the father but as said, you maybe need to look for more evidence.

Did the child use the mothers husbands surname on the censuses?

Ben

[osprey]

An unmarried mother registering the birth of a child at that time could not put the name of the father unless he was present at the registration to sign. This was the case under the Registration Act of 1875.

http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/births.htm#COL4

So, he may have been the father and didn't attend the registration or he may not..