Father of illegitimate child. Beyond reasonable doubt.

[coombs]

Hi

A thread was posted on the Common Room and the beyond reasonable doubt thing and it has encouraged me to post my story on the father of my 2xgreat grandmother. I can never be 100% sure of this and have known it all along but am 99.5% sure Thomas was the father. Here goes:-

My great, great grandmother was born Mary Ann Walder on 31 December 1863 in Warninglid, Sussex not far from Cuckfield. No fathers name on her birth cert. She was the illegitimate daughter of Mary Ann Walder, the local wheelwright's daughter.

In the spring of 1864 Mary Ann Walder and a much older servant called Thomas Roberts moved to Stoke Newington in London. They wed at West Hackney Church on 25th July 1864. The baby was then baptised as the daughter of the new husband at the very same church on 6th November 1864. "Mary Ann Kate, daughter of Thomas and Mary Ann Roberts". They wed when the baby was almost 7 months old and had the baby baptised when she was 10 months old.

A few years earlier in the 1861 census Thomas Roberts was aged 47, living in Brighton, a footman and servant. Living with wife Esther and daughter Ann aged 9. Mary Ann Walder was living 12 miles away in her usual village of Warninglid. That villages is quaint and was surrounded by manors.

Mary Ann Walder fell pregnant in the spring of 1863 if she had her baby on 31 December 1863. Now I then found that Esther Roberts died on the 14th November 1863 in Brighton, aged 42, wife of Thomas Roberts a servant and footman. She died of "phthisis, several years certified". Thomas's next wife Mary Ann Walder was about 7 and a half months pregnant when Esther died. She gave birth on 31 December 1863, 6 weeks after Esther Roberts died. Mary Ann Walder's grandad John Walder died on 31 January 1864 and buried on the 6th Feb 1864 in Warninglid. Thomas and Mary then moved to London, married and then had the baby baptised.

Although it is hard to prove beyond possible doubt but I think with the evidence I can say I am 99.5% sure Thomas Roberts was the father of the baby born 31 Dec 1863.

Ben

[Just Kia]

I would be inclined to agree with you.
I believe that parents getting married legitimised a child, even if the child had been born out of wedlock.
I have a few instances in my tree where they waited until they had married to get the chil baptised.

[avm228]

I believe that parents getting married legitimised a child, even if the child had been born out of wedlock.

Not until the Legitimacy Act 1926 came into force...

[avm228]

Although it is hard to prove beyond possible doubt but I think with the evidence I can say I am 99.5% sure Thomas Roberts was the father of the baby born 31 Dec 1863.

I'd agree that seems most likely (though I'd go for "on balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"!).

[coombs]

Hi avm

What is the difference between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt?
Ben

[Just Kia]

I believe that parents getting married legitimised a child, even if the child had been born out of wedlock.

Not until the Legitimacy Act 1926 came into force...

Oops, one day I'll manage to remember the acts and rules and regulatuions in the right order... then again I probably won't unless I start a chronological list 

[avm228]

What is the difference between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt?

The balance of probabilities means it's "more likely than not". In your case I think it's probably well over this threshold - much more likely than not.

Beyond reasonable doubt is the required standard of proof for a criminal conviction in England & Wales - the jury has to be sure of the accused's guilt in order to convict.

But this is all a bit academic and legalistic - for the purposes of your family tree I don't think you have to approach it like a judge or a member of a jury. You just have to be satisfied for your own purposes.  In circumstances such as you have described there will be probably always be room for a bit of doubt (as you have acknowledged by saying you are "99.5% sure") but you are entitled to reach your own judgment as to whether to ascribe paternity to Thomas.

[coombs]

Yes I am 99.5% sure. I think "beyond reasonable doubt" is probably a rare phrase in fathers of illegitimate children. I would say balance of probabilities for any suspected dad of a base baby. A poor law document is no more proof than a suspected father being named on a baptism as there is always that small doubt he may have been covering up.

I have an ancestor born in 1771 and a man owned up to being the father in a bastardy bond. No guarantee he was the real father but like the Roberts case I am 99.5% sure.

Thomas and Mary Ann had their baby baptised at the same church they wed at.

[RJ_Paton]

I would agree that you have built a pretty very strong case to establish the correct parentage

Not until the Legitimacy Act 1926 came into force...

Just as an aside for those who come under Scottish legislation  ---  the position in Scotland has always been that if there was no impediment to the marriage of the parents prior to or at the time of the birth of the child the subsequent marriage legitimised the child