What was my Mother ? Who am I ? what am I ?

[clairec666]

So, in genealogical / legal terms,  What was my Mother  ?    Who am I ?    What am I  ?     

You are legitimate. It doesn't matter what happened in previous generations - we're all descended from an illegitimate child somewhere along the line.

[Blue70]

I have some similar stuff in my tree. I would suggest you write it up or document it whatever way you see fit using whatever stories and records that support your telling of your family history. It's up to you how you tell it or record it.


Blue

[Rena]

That's an interesting quandary you've got there, presumably neither she nor man.1 applied for a legal separation.

At that time, legally, the grandmother was still man No.1's "chattel" and thus legally any child she had would be considered to be his child.

Until comparatively recently any person who married bigamously where children were involved was hauled off to prison - her lucky stars must have been shining down on her.

[heywood]

I found out in my searching, that my grandmother married Man no 1 in 1899.
1903 a child born with No 1 surname BUT same surname for mother.
This was my great aunt.
I believe she was my grandfather's daughter.

Other children born received my grandfather's surname and my grandmother's proper maiden name.

In 1943 First man died in June quarter.
In 1943  my grandparents married in the same quarter.

They waited for forty years for grandma to be free to marry.

[Josephine]

At that time, legally, the grandmother was still man No.1's "chattel" and thus legally any child she had would be considered to be his child.

This was the case here in North America and I was wondering if it was also the case in the UK.

In such cases, the grandmother's husband could have been required to pay child support for any child born while they were still married, and the children could be given the husband's surname.

But what surname appears on OP's mother's birth record? Grandmother's husband (the legal father) or grandmother's lover (the biological father)? Oops -- just reread the thread: grandmother's lover was listed as the daughter's father and so presumably the daughter was given her biological father's surname.

One of my sets of great-grandparents (in the US) separated but never divorced. They each went on to have pretend-marriages and children with subsequent "spouses." The children were given the surnames of the pretend-spouses. The surnames were legitimate but technically the children were not (although they didn't know it until years later when I showed up looking for great-granddad and great-grandma).

Interesting conundrum.

Best regards,
Josephine

[Josephine]

If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like OP's mother would have been considered illegitimate in legal terms:

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/legitimacyadoption/

[panda40]

I have a similar family in my tree. Sarah was married to husband, had two children. Lodger next door. Husband disappears and the next three children are born with the lodger surname given as their middle name. Husband still alive and living in Norfolk. Sarah marries Lodger lists herself as a widow. Two more children born who now have the surname of the lodger/ second husband.
These things happened quite often.
Regards panda

[jupiter1]

What does your mother's birth certificate say about her parentage?

born 31-3-1911 born Mile end, London:  farther = man no 2:
mother = maternal Grnd mother under man no 2's surname

Sorry for slow reply.


Blue

[Blue70]

What does your mother's birth certificate say about her parentage?

born 31-3-1911 born Mile end, London:  farther = man no 2:
mother = maternal Grnd mother under man no 2's surname

Sorry for slow reply.


Blue

It appears then that they were presenting themselves as husband and wife so the child could be registered as legitimate and under the correct parents. They could also have both appeared on the certificate as an unmarried couple, included the father's details and both signed as informants as per the 1875 Registration Act. It would have been easier to just present the father's and mother's details as though they were married.

So according to the birth certificate your mother was legitimate. According to the marriage to man number 1 and the absence of death or divorce your mother was illegitimate. This does not confer on you either legitimacy or illegitimacy as it concerns your mother. In terms of family history it's a good thing that the real parents are on the birth certificate as it allows you to accurately trace your ancestral lines with both records and family stories as evidence.

I have an 1858 birth certificate where the parents were unmarried and the birth was registered as though they were married with father's details included. The parents married three months after the child's birth the father was probably away at sea around the time of the birth. I also have in my tree 20th century births being registered under man number 1's details who was still legally married to the mother but who had moved on relationship-wise and later two bigamous marriages.


Blue