Illegitimacy

[coombs]

I think usually fathers probably did attend the baptisms, if they were in a relationship or married to the mother but if a mother took her illegitimate baby to baptism, and the father was not around she would often name the reputed father.

[Maggyanne1950]

I think usually fathers probably did attend the baptisms, if they were in a relationship or married to the mother but if a mother took her illegitimate baby to baptism, and the father was not around she would often name the reputed father.

But..... if the father/husband was away for a lengthy period of time and did not/was unable to attend the baptism, could this be taken as denial of paternity? It's just that I have not encountered this type of illegitamacy; ie 3 babies legit. and 3 not, following after. Another option (other than army) is that he was a waterman on the trent canal. If he was away a lot and did not attend church when home, what might "the church" assume about him? I can understand the situation of illegitamacy in the unmarried, but this lady appears to be married and I cannot trace hubby's death.

[Gone]

On a lighter note, the baptism records relating to one family in my tree had the odd comments attached by the vicar, one being "his forth wife" and another "his twenty first living child" no such comment for his twenty forth though at the age of 71+ 

I also have a copy of a court order for another family member to pay for the upkeep of his bastard child, six pounds and seventeen shillings, then two shillings and six pence weekly "for and towards the keeping, sustentation, and maintenance of the said bastard child, for and during so long time as the said bastard child shall be chargeable to the said parish of Ringwood." They also ordered the mother to pay sixpence weekly for the same period.
This was in 1829, a lot of money even then.

[venelow]

Maggyanne

I see that there is a three year gap between one set of children and the three illegitimate ones. It is possible there was a split between the husband and wife.  They may have both taken up with new partners and were not able to marry because they cannot be divorced. If that is the case the children of the new union will be baptized in their mother's name which is her married one.

Possibly you might find a remarriage after one of them died.

Other explanations could be:
Desertion by her husband and she has found a new partner.

You have not found his death.
Possible reasons are:
He died in another part of the country.
He died at sea.
He met with an accident and his body was not identified.

Alternatively are you sure that the mother of the illegitimate children is the same person that married the father of the legitimate children?  The first couple could have moved away from Newark and another woman with the same name started having illegitimate children baptized in Newark.

Can you find the legitimate children linked to the illegitimate children? Marriage witnesses for example. Or mentioned in a Will. Do any of the illegitimate ones marry after July 1st 1837? Do they give a father's name?

Just some thoughts.

Venelow
Canada

[Maggyanne1950]

Thank you all for your interesting and helpful replies. Venelow, thanks, I will persue those lines of enquiry. I think another trip to Nottingham may be needed.

[jorose]

Are those dates right? They don't look like they could be kids of a single woman. Especially the earliest.
1778, 1800, 1802, 1806, 1808, and 1815

I could believe 1800 through 1815 as children born to a woman who was later widowed, abandoned, or otherwise separated from her husband sometime 1802-1805.

[Beeonthebay]

Could it just be a case of two different mothers who share the same name?  One married with a husband and 3 legitimate children, the other not married with 3 illegitimate children.

She could even be the sister of the married woman's husband or at least a cousin or some relative.

In some of the places I am looking in Cheshire there seem to be many people with the same names or variations thereof.  They were very unimaginative with their christian names and I have a bit of a nightmare trying to reconstruct families trying to find my ancestor. 

[Maggyanne1950]

Sorry Jorose, that's a typo. Should be 1798.
Re the possibility of two mothers, I need to look more closely at this family, to see if I can trace the husband's siblings. He is not readily traceable up to now. I have noted all the suggestions and think that I need to plan another trip. Unfortunately, the Newark marriages are missing for this era, and they have used Phillimore to fill the gap. All the interesting bits such as witnesses are absent.
At least I now have ideas to persue, thank you all.