Illegitimate child

[majm]

 

....  If it's not on a birth certificate, I think you can put on your tree what you have been told, just add a disclaimer that that this is what you have been told. People are within their rights to comment that they disagree but i don't think it should be taken down.

Marie, I gather you are referring to family tree charts uploaded to various websites ?    These are of course, written up from the point of view of the tree owner, sometimes with a great depth of understanding of the bdm official records supporting their family members.  HOWEVER, sadly, sometimes those uploaded trees seem to show the tree owner is without a full understanding of the impact that mis-leading or scant information can give to even less experienced family history researchers.   

May I please gently suggest I suggest that even if the father of a baby is named on a civil registration, that does not actually prove he is the biological father, regardless of if the parents were legally married to each other.   

If the woman is a married woman, surely all it proves is that SHE recognised HIM as her husband?  Surely civil law for much of the 19th and most of the 20th century recognised the husband of the baby's mum as the lawful father, even if he was not part of the family in the year or so before the baby's birth?     

Surely info on a tree chart only provides info that the researcher believes to be factual, sometimes based on official records,  sometimes on independent sources (BDM announcements in newspapers) sometimes based on oral history, sometimes based on family records (birthday books, entries in family Bible), sometimes based on 'twaddle' (Guestimates, putting two and two together but getting five, or completely mixing up generations or neighbours with similar names, or worse !) . 

I firmly believe that 'twaddle' ought to be removed from any family tree as soon as it is questioned and exposed as twaddle.   I believe oral history and official records both have their place in family history, but as to twaddle ..... it is an adverse mark on the research skills of the tree owner who uploaded it. 

Cheers,  JM

[Guy Etchells]

Hello,

I have a question - is there a protocol for placing an illegitimate child's name in a family tree when the biological father's name is known? Should it be his tree.......or...?

I should know this but I'm afraid I don't.

Chanel

If the father is know his name should appear on the tree.

In the centuries before computers, this was shown by a broken line linking the father and child. Some computer programs allow this, some even break down this grouping further and include a symbol for a birth after "legal cohabitation", a series of dots and dashes.

Legally the father of a child (in the UK) is the mother's husband, if she is married, unless it can be shown that he had no 'access' to the mother during the relevant period of time.

Cheers
Guy

[Gillg]

The BVRI shows the putative father of an illegitimate child printed in italics.  This is from local records, as the parish authorities wanted to pursue him for financial support for the child.  In the case of my gt-gt-grandmother a father's name was given in the BVRI records, but was actually printed in italics to show that the parents were not married.  Of course it wasn't always possible to track down the father, so the support for the mother was down to the parish. I'm talking here about a birth in 1806.

Today's partnerships, some fleeting, others more permanent, are going to cause many a headache for future genealogist trying to chase family relationships!

[Freespirit1]

I have an instance where the illegitimate child's father was named in bastardy records and so I have added both the father and the bastardy record to the tree and followed the father's line back.  I have also noted the two marriages of the father even though they have no direct connection to my family.

I have noticed also that in certain parishes the baptising minister unfailingly insisted on entering a father's name for any illegitimate child and recorded the children with alternative surnames.

[chanel]

Thank you all again for your contributions.

I believe this may be a difficult one to reach a consensus on, but let me just add that I think we would all agree that a true family tree should show only authentic, biologically sound blood lines. Easily said,  but perhaps not so easily implemented! Maybe, some day, DNA tests will prove the ultimate arbiter and there will be a coding or symbol or something used to identify a biologically correct and proven entry ..I wonder! Meantime, I think we're going to see "Family Trees" of all shapes and sizes and all manner of detail, each constructed according to the whims of the researcher who owns it.
Maybe we're all being too serious about this??? I guess the bottom line is simply that every human being has the right to to a place on a family tree -- full stop!!

Chanel

[Gillg]

I have actually entered my adopted brother on my tree, adding details of his birth name and family history.  The history itself is on another tree, as we had details from his blood relatives, discovered long after the deaths of his birth mother and those of our parents.  We may not be blood relatives, but to me he will always be my brother.

Well, that's sentiment winning over biological correctness, I suppose.  On paper I'm an only child, but in real life I had a wonderful big brother!

[chanel]

Thanks for your last post, Gillg, it's very heartwarming.

Perhaps there needs to be two types of Family Tree -- A Biological Family Tree, unadorned, with just true blood lines, and a Sociological Family Tree, with whatever on it.
Reading back through the posts to my original question, it's clear that many (most?) people  want to put all sorts of things on their family tree and it's no wonder! The simple Mother/Father/Child method of old has become more and more outmoded as the years have passed. These days, there are umpteen different variations and complications that may need to be taken into account, so it's little wonder the system has got the wobbles.

Oh, well............let the purists be pure and let the rest of the tree-makers be happy with what they're doing!!

Chanel

[Guy Etchells]

I have actually entered my adopted brother on my tree, adding details of his birth name and family history.  The history itself is on another tree, as we had details from his blood relatives, discovered long after the deaths of his birth mother and those of our parents.  We may not be blood relatives, but to me he will always be my brother.

Well, that's sentiment winning over biological correctness, I suppose.  On paper I'm an only child, but in real life I had a wonderful big brother!

No not sentiment winning over biological correctness, just family history winning over genealogy.

You are recording the history of your family not the genealogy of your family.
The history of your family includes everything that had an effect of influence on your family, it could be natural occurrences like the weather, man-made influences such as work, war, railways or even the expansion of a village into a town.
It also includes the social engagement of your family with those they come into contact with.

The inclusion of an adopted sibling is a prime example of family history as is the inclusion of children assimilated into a family when two parents (with their separate children) decide to live together as one family.

Cheers
Guy

[Gillg]

Thanks for your wise words, Guy.  I guess I'm more into family history than genealogy, especially as I've just learned that the man I and my grandmother believed to be her father may. after all, not have been!  Sometimes you just have to rely on family legend to fill in the gaps, but the far more experienced one name study owner who has challenged my belief is clearly a genealogist who won't enter anything that isn't supported by documentation. 

Gillg