Professions of 'absent' fathers on birth certificates -- illegitimate births

[CelticAnnie]

The skeleton in our family closet  is the birth of a baby in 1870 to an unmarried lady -- fathered by her brother-in-law! (She had been living in his household for many years, along with her sister -- his wife -- and the children of the marriage). In the 1871 census, the baby's relationship to the head-of-household father is described as 'nephew'; but in the 1881 census he is listed as the child of his biological father and his wife -- with the implication that he is being raised as a sibling of his half-cousins.  Not that unusual an event, I suppose -- although it must have caused a lot of friction between the adults in the household for a time.

This is a lower middle-class family, to whom respectability would have been important.

My questions relate to the birth certificate.  First -- excluding where baby is illegitimate -- how common was it for births to be registered by mother rather than by father at this time (around 1870)?  Second, the father's profession is listed as 'master mariner' (he was actually a wholesale chemist!) -- presumably with the implication that he was away a lot, which is why mother rather than father is having to register the birth.  If y'all have any clearly 'made up fathers' on birth certificates in your collection, do they similarly follow made-up professions which might have kept them away from home at time when baby was born -- thus allowing the mother a veneer of respectability as she registers the birth?  If so, what made-up professions do they follow?   I guess I'm just curious about why this lady (who lived in London but not near the Thames) chose 'master mariner' for her baby's fictional father!

CELTICANNIE     

[avm228]

Very common for a mother to be the informant on registration. Made up fathers often bear some similarity to real people in the family. But their invention is (in my experience) more common on a marriage, rather than on a birth registration.

I have to ask - how do you know the brother-in-law was the biological father?

[CelticAnnie]

Thank you for your response, avm228!  I guess the short answer is absent DNA information how can we be completely sure who the father of any child is?!

There are just a lot of clues which point to brother-in-law being the father.  I was brought up believing baby was full sibling of father’s legitimate children and have no reason to suppose extended family at the time thought otherwise.  Father’s name on birth certificate is very similar to brother-in-law’s name — identical surname, in fact; whilst first name is close to his middle name. 

CELTICANNIE

[andrewalston]

I read it as follows:
When she went to register the birth, she gave her proper name, say Mary Jones, but pretended to be married to John Jones, master mariner, when in reality her sister was married to John Smith, chemist.

I have not come across such a registration in my lot, though there are a couple of invented fathers on marriage entries.

However my lot were not exactly "middle class", so less likely to be swayed by "respectability".

I'm not sure why she would bother. The registrar would see dozens of illegitimate births. If he knew the family then he would be aware of the lie. If he didn't, it wouldn't matter anyway, unless they lived in a part of town which was known to be very "straight-laced" and the registrar was prone to gossip.

Then again she may have been considering the future life of the child. The invented father could easily be "drowned at sea" and the child would have a certificate to show later in life without a hint of illegitimacy.

[heywood]

It doesn’t seem like that to me andrewalston but I could have misunderstood 

There are just a lot of clues which point to brother-in-law being the father.  I was brought up believing baby was full sibling of father’s legitimate children and have no reason to suppose extended family at the time thought otherwise.  Father’s name on birth certificate is very similar to brother-in-law’s name — identical surname, in fact; whilst first name is close to his middle name. 

CELTICANNIE

If the child was registered in the brother in law’s surname (as above) and similar first names, it does look very possible.
Otherwise, I would have suggested that the sister and brother in law just raised the child as their own as often happened with extended families.

However, with regard to the query, mothers did register their children and also they did invent husbands/fathers.

[majm]

You did not need to be a master mariner to be at sea .... you could be an able seaman,  a cook, a steward, a carpenter, a lumper, a surgeon... and many other occupations .... even just a plain ordinary mariner  or first mate ...

Master Mariner should be traceable.

JM

[mlrfn448]

I don't think you can assume that the brother in law is the biological father, just because she was living in the house.
He may have decided to bring the child up as a family member to avoid 'throwing his sister in law out of the house', etc
That said occupations are rather important.
I have an example where an unmarried mother appears to have registered the birth of her son as though she is married.
She has given the father's last name, and a father's name in the box, her own first name, and the name 'smith' as her former name.
It is the father's occupation that has convinced me this is the correct one. It is consistent on various other documents.
The son is later known by the mother's lastname and later by the lastname of his stepfather (who was not his biological father).

[robesur]

You say that in 1881 the child is entered as Son of the father and his wife! This is not correct the question on a census form is the relationship to the head of the household. he can therefore be a child of the 'head' without being related to the wife.

This catches out a lot of people who just assume that the head's wife is the mother, often a first wife dies and he marry's again, particularly if the two wives share the same first name.

[CelticAnnie]

Apologies for any confusion -- and for my delay in returning to this thread.

So just to be clear (although still using assumed names): baby's mother is 'Mary Jones' and her brother-in-law (in whose household she lives) is 'Tom Peterson Smith' -- with Peterson, his middle name, being his mother's maiden name.  In the birth certificate, mother's name is listed as 'Mary Smith formerly Jones' and baby's father's name is given as 'Peter Smith' --ie father's forename incorporates part of brother-in-law's middle name, and he has same surname.  That being so, I do feel it is highly likely that brother-in-law is the father -- although obviously I cannot prove it.

mirfn448, you are quite right to remind me that just because a child is listed as being in a household this does not necessarily mean they are the child of male head-of-household's then wife.  This baby was listed as nephew of head of household in 1871 census (which is what led me to get the birth certificate) -- so there was certainly a distinction made then.  But this was relatively soon after the birth, when things were still fresh and raw.  But I certainly should not draw the conclusion from no distinction being made that it means head of household and his wife are bringing up the child as their own in 1881.

Useful to know that it was not uncommon for mothers rather than fathers at this time to register births -- thank you for that.

Thank you to all for your much-appreciated comments. 

CELTICANNIE