Father of illegitimate child. Beyond reasonable doubt.

[coombs]

It is best to just take the case that he was the father of the baby which is the very likeliest. Searching for the exact truth on fathers of base children is impossible in any case. If you find strong evidence on the paternity of a base child then it is best to just take it that man was. 99% or 99.5% is good enough.

[aspin]

I'm interested here as my grt grt grandmother Elonor Munro(as it is spelt Eleanor )was the illegitimate daughter of Mary McDonald and William Munro .born around  1843 in Pitsligo Scotland .I could never find a marriage for Mary and William .However it worked out William was working on a farm owned by Marys father and Mary and William were both about 15 to 16 years old at the time of the Elonors  birth ,I entered this into rootschat some years ago and I think it was Gadget who put me on the right trail in finding out more
Elonor was brought up by her grandparents Mary went on to marry a Peter Barclay and William never married
Elonor married William Watson and all  her married life she has  her father William Munro living with her living with her. So in Scotland did the baby have to carry the fathers surename as my husbands grandfather was names reputed son of ........... this means I cannot go no further with this side of the family
Elizabeth

[Just Kia]

I've got illegitimate children in Scotland (well not me, personally) and they have their mother's surname, so I don't think it can be a rule that they have their father's surname.
I think it is the same (as England) in that if the father of an illegitimate child is present at the registration, he can be named on the birth entry.

Just to make it harder to find marriages in Scotland...

http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/content/help/index.aspx?406
Irregular Marriages
Bear in mind that 'irregular' marriages, by exchange of promises before witnesses, by betrothal and consummation, or by cohabitation and repute, were forms of marriage recognised by Scots Law, yet may have taken place without any official record of the event.

[Kevinshouse]

I read the story with great interest.
 My grandfather was illegitimate (this was never mentioned in the family) so until I started researching our family history did not know this story. My grandfather was born in 1898 his mother Eliza was 38 years old and had been a widow for 5 years (she already had 11 children when she was widowed) my grandfather had an older brother James who was 13 months older than him and according to my father they were very close all their lives. The birth certificate of James was signed by James Brook who was the lodger to confirm that he was his father, I also believe he was a relative of Eliza's late husband as they share the last name of Brook. On the 1901 census James Brook is living with my g grandmother his name comes after hers on the census, James his son and my grandfather now aged 3 are living there too. I believe that James Brook must be my g grandfather, the fact that he signed the certificate of his son James, the fact that my grandfather was born 13 months after his brother, and lastly that James Brook was still living with my grandmother in 1901.
 I would like to know anyones opinions on this and what they think.
By the way the reason that it was never talked about I found out was that James Brook was married to Eliza's sister and was having children with her too!

[fifer1947]

"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.

I would agree with you chronologically with the death of his wife it makes sense, and the recording above is the clincher for me.  After all baby could just have been recorded as the child of a previous marriage, Thomas chose to marry Mary Ann and acknowledge his daughter.

Looks like Thomas was having an affair with Mary Ann when it was obvious his wife was dying, as they say "life goes on" and who could blame him.

PS We should remember that a fair number of births are allocated to the wrong father even within marriage.  Our family trees rely on the honesty of the mothers.

[RedMystic]

PS We should remember that a fair number of births are allocated to the wrong father even within marriage.  Our family trees rely on the honesty of the mothers.

This trend continues. There is a university near me that, a few years ago, decided one of their introductory medical classes should study DNA by asking the students to bring in hair samples of mother, father, and themselves. They had to halt the project when early findings were that upwards of 35% of the students were not related to the fathers that they thought were theirs. 

[coombs]

Also even though I am not sure if the parsons of the church knew of this, but when the babe Mary Ann Kate Roberts was baptised she was almost a year old and she was baptised at the same church her parents wed at just 3 and a half months before the baptism. I think there were 2 or 3 regular parsons there so maybe they knew they had a baby beforehand. Many people lied to a registrar but less people lied to a man of the cloth.

 Thomas having an affair was not great but we must see it from an 1860s point of view not a 2011 point of view. As said 99% evidence is good enough for me. Also on the subsequent censuses she is listed as daughter and in an 1878 poor law record where the family applied for poor relief after losing money on a beer house business.

[MagicMirror]

less people lied to a man of the cloth. 

Would they even have had to lie? I've seen children baptised as legitimate on the same day as their parents' marriage, presumably by the same clergyman.

[Just Kia]

Once the parents marry the child is legitimate...