Where should I put him on my tree?

[Rosinish]

I "know" his father was his aunts husband BUT I have no record proof, so I have put him in the tree according to written records, extensively researched who I think his real father is and written everything in notes of what I have found what conclusions and why I have come to those.

That's the thing as a birth cert. is a legal doc even if they did tell porkies

It's so frustrating when the evidence is pointing elsewhere but we can't change the law just because we think we know the truth 

Annie.

[iluleah]

You are so right Annie his primary records say one thing, he married twice and "his father" was alive for both marriages yet he doesn't write him on either of his marriage certs, even though the first church was the same one he was baptised in and to a family who had lived in that village for at least 700 years ( that I can document).

I have lots of other reasons/circumstances why I think what I do. BUT unless I go the DNA route( highly unlikely I would do that)  there is nothing I can prove

[Jomot]

Was Alice Peacock young enough to have had a child in 1877? 

Alice would have been 39 and William 54 so theoretically Alice could have been the mother, but the other thing I'd almost forgotten is that although they married in 1864, just months after the death of William's first wife, I'm not aware of them having any children together except (allegedly) George in 1877.  William and his first wife had 8 children and five of them would have been under the age of 10 when he married Alice so possibly a marriage of convenience?

[smudwhisk]

I have a number of ancestors who married only a few months after their first spouse died, so yes I think a lot of the time it was a marriage of convenience.  Particularly with husbands as they obviously needed someone to take care of their kids.   Or am I just being cynical?

My Great Great Aunt was born illegitimately when my 2xGreat Grandfather had already been in a mental asylum for 9 years.  There is no father's name on the birth certificate and I've not found a baptism for her, but interestingly on both of her marriage certificates she lists her mother's widowed lodger as her father.  I always suspected he could have been because he was living with the family over three Census but had no proof.  I think the marriage certificate says everything.  In reality if she'd wanted to, she could probably have listed her mother's husband.

Another of my ancestors was also born illegitimately (as was her grandfather) and there is no father on the birth certificate.  Four years after her birth, her mother married and we'd always listed her mother's husband as her step father.  That is until we found her baptism at the age of two years while her mother was in the local workhouse awaiting the birth of another child.  On the baptism, her mother gave her a middle name which was the same as her future husband's surname.  When my ancestor married her "step father" was listed as her father, her middle name had become her surname and her birth surname as her middle name.  He was also a witness to the marriage and signed the register.  We're now fairly certain he probably was her father and also the father of the second child her mother had, who sadly was registered with no name as he died soon after the birth.  While we can't prove it completely, it does look likely.  Her father was several years younger than her mother and a carpenter.  He was under 21 years old when both children were born, and its quite likely that they weren't allowed to marry as he may have been under a formal apprenticeship.  Interestingly, they only actually married four months before the third child was born.

While Annie is correct that the birth certificate is a legal document, there are known to be errors in them (I've one direct ancestor and an ancestor's sibling whose marriage certificates list an incorrect father's name and an ancestor's siblings birth certificate with the wrong mother's first name) and if other evidence points to who the correct parents were, personally I would add the child to the correct parents rather that the legal ones but, as iluleah has said, with some good notes as to why.  But again, that is my personal view.

[Jomot]

Thanks Smudwhisk

I too have several other illegitimacies with the child subsequently naming an entirely made up father on their marriage certificate, so I agree that whilst they are legal documents they aren't necessarily true. 

Thinking it through, I haven't added these fictitious fathers to my tree even though the marriage certificate in theory has greater legal standing than the baptism record (the only record of some of these births), so on balance will probably go with the baptism & census records as you suggest and add him as Margaret's son pre-marriage.

For a family that now considers itself fine & upstanding it turns out we have more skeletons than closets 

[iluleah]

While Annie is correct that the birth certificate is a legal document, there are known to be errors in them (I've one direct ancestor and an ancestor's sibling whose marriage certificates list an incorrect father's name and an ancestor's siblings birth certificate with the wrong mother's first name) and if other evidence points to who the correct parents were, personally I would add the child to the correct parents rather that the legal ones but, as iluleah has said, with some good notes as to why.  But again, that is my personal view.

Civil records like any other can have errors. Personally I separate primary from secondary records. Yes people can lie, things can get written down wrong, especially when many couldn't read/write so they wouldn't have corrected an error they were unaware of.
However Primary records at the time or close to the time of the event are  more likely to be true, such as a birth cert/ baptism record will show parents, dates of birth/baptism and place where this took place ( primary information) unless of course there was a deliberate lie being told. But a secondary records like a marriage cert ( primary with date,place of the marriage ONLY) all the rest of the information is secondary, such as  fathers name, the couples ages.

I only know one great grandmothers age because of the primary baptism record which also has noted her date of birth, she married an older man and so pretended to be older than she was by some years, so each census she lied, on her marriage cert she lied, even my grandmother who registered her death registered her 12 years older than she really was and on their marriage cert it says bachelor/spinster, yet my great grandfather was married prior and had 6 children in that marriage 5 of which died and none of his second family knew anything about it...I know because I knew and spoke to my grandmother and all my great aunts /uncles and they hadn't a clue, it came as a shock to them all and somewhat of a shock to me as I thought they knew.

[smudwhisk]

My grandmother was surprised to find her grandmother was 80 when she died.  My 2xGGmother was somewhat economical with the truth as she was 6 years older than her husband.  There isn't an age on her marriage certificate, but every census after she married has a number of years lopped off her age and her death certificate and memorial card both list the incorrect age.   Ok, that's down to the informant, but I doubt any of them knew her correct age.

An ancestor's sibling's birth certificate lists his mother as Mary Ann Catherine, his baptism as Mary Ann Caroline.  I originally purchased the certificate from the GRO, but the local Register Office confirmed the original entry does say Catherine.  Her correct name was Mary Ann Caroline, which she was baptised as and which she married as.  Similarly, another ancestor's half sibling's birth certificate has her mother's first name listed as Mary when in fact it was Elizabeth.  The certificate is for the correct person, all other information is correct.  Again, it could be an error in the GRO certificate, but that shows they can't always be relied upon.

[Jomot]

Do you know if he had a will as this would possibly have valuable info.....................although maybe not as he appears to have severed ties for whatever reason?

I have found his will surprisingly easily but as expected, no mention of his family.  Everything was left to a Mrs Sarah Ferguson, who was also the informant on his death certificate.

However Primary records at the time or close to the time of the event are  more likely to be true, such as a birth cert/ baptism record will show parents, dates of birth/baptism and place where this took place ( primary information) unless of course there was a deliberate lie being told.

My gut tells me his birth certificate was a deliberate lie and that the subsequent records (census & baptism) are more likely to be the truth.  It's interesting that George left the UK shortly after George Snr died & I wonder if it was he (George Snr) that pushed for him to be 'legitimised', with Margaret still perhaps embarrassed by him?

Guess I'll just have to wait and see if George Snr's will throws anything up, and if not then go with whatever I believe to be true.  Ultimately I guess its my record of my family and so long as I note why I've drawn the conclusions I have, then others who read it later can draw their own.

Many thanks for everyone's input - its been interesting reading about everyone else's muddled families 

[pinefamily]

In my tree, I put something in the notes if there is an element of doubt about any information. It's a bit harder in your case, with unclear parentage, although as you say there is more evidence leaning one way than the other. As a neutral observer, I think the most telling piece is the census record when GW is described as a nephew.
It is interesting that he has the same combination of names as his "stepfather". A bit more investigation into GW senior's whereabouts at the time of GWs birth is warranted, even though you may never know for sure.