Author Topic: were they illagitamate  (Read 7854 times)

Offline oldhippyone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,284
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
were they illagitamate
« on: Saturday 28 February 15 13:53 GMT (UK) »
i havejust recieved 2 birth certificates and where it ask,s for fathers name it has a line going through also on fathers occupation does this meen they were born with father unknown ? i thought it would of said born illagitamate what do the large / mean ? both born to same mother one in 1840 other in 1848 , both died a few years later

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,276
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: were they illagitamate
« Reply #1 on: Saturday 28 February 15 13:55 GMT (UK) »
Yes, I think it would be correct to asume that they were illegitimate. :)

Offline oldhippyone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,284
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: were they illagitamate
« Reply #2 on: Saturday 28 February 15 13:58 GMT (UK) »
thank you .... but do you have a idea why it didnt say illegitamate ... could it be she didnt want any one to know the father ? maybe a affair ? or maybe she had to be a working girl to survive ?

Offline oldhippyone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,284
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: were they illagitamate
« Reply #3 on: Saturday 28 February 15 14:02 GMT (UK) »
i have to add she had 7 children in all .... with no fathers names


Offline aghadowey

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 52,590
    • View Profile
Re: were they illagitamate
« Reply #4 on: Saturday 28 February 15 14:03 GMT (UK) »
The father of an illegitimate child could be listed on the birth certificate- but the father would have had to appear with the mother to register the child.
Away sorting out DNA matches... I may be gone for some time many years!

Offline oldhippyone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,284
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: were they illagitamate
« Reply #5 on: Saturday 28 February 15 14:04 GMT (UK) »
ok thank you ...

Offline Guy Etchells

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,632
    • View Profile
Re: were they illagitamate
« Reply #6 on: Saturday 28 February 15 15:30 GMT (UK) »
The father of an illegitimate child could be listed on the birth certificate- but the father would have had to appear with the mother to register the child.

Not in 1840 or in 1848 which is what the question was about.

Prior to circa 1850 the putative father could be named on a birth certificate without attending to register the birth.

The safest assumption is no father's name was given to the registrar. That could be because the infant was a bastard or it could simply be the person registering the birth did not know the father's name.

There may be more clues if you look who registered the birth.

Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline oldhippyone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,284
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: were they illagitamate
« Reply #7 on: Saturday 28 February 15 15:40 GMT (UK) »
Is the mothers name on the birth certificate not the person who regisitered the birth ss it has same name in as mother in who registered collum

Offline KGarrad

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,749
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: were they illagitamate
« Reply #8 on: Saturday 28 February 15 15:48 GMT (UK) »
The father of an illegitimate child could be listed on the birth certificate- but the father would have had to appear with the mother to register the child.

Not in 1840 or in 1848 which is what the question was about.

Prior to circa 1850 the putative father could be named on a birth certificate without attending to register the birth.

The safest assumption is no father's name was given to the registrar. That could be because the infant was a bastard or it could simply be the person registering the birth did not know the father's name.

There may be more clues if you look who registered the birth.

Cheers
Guy

Guy, wasn't that 1874 Births and Deaths Registration Act?
Garrad (Suffolk, Essex, Somerset), Crocker (Somerset), Vanstone (Devon, Jersey), Sims (Wiltshire), Bridger (Kent)