How do we differentiate between Fact and Fiction?

[jc26red]

For instance if your ancestor was the oldest child and the bride was several months pregnant at the time she married, does make you think. I have a bride who was 7 months pregnant when she married in May 1784, and the eldest daughter is my ancestor, born July 1784 in Bethnal Green.

I remember sitting in on a talk by a well known SOG member at a WDYTYA exhibition many years ago and he talked about his theory.

If the couple marry before the baby is born then they would have probably married anyway.

If they wait until the baby is born and lives the the groom probably didn’t intend to marry but had to, if the baby didn’t survive then he had a near miss and unlikely to marry the mother.

If a year or more passes before the mother marries then the groom is unlikely to be the father of the child. Of course you should double check to see if there is any reason why the couple didn’t marry earlier.

Then there is a case where a pregnant woman finds a man to marry her just so the she can say she is married when the baby is born. The groom will be long gone by then.

All food for thought! Hard to prove any of the above too.

.

[coombs]

For instance if your ancestor was the oldest child and the bride was several months pregnant at the time she married, does make you think. I have a bride who was 7 months pregnant when she married in May 1784, and the eldest daughter is my ancestor, born July 1784 in Bethnal Green.

I remember sitting in on a talk by a well known SOG member at a WDYTYA exhibition many years ago and he talked about his theory.

If the couple marry before the baby is born then they would have probably married anyway.

If they wait until the baby is born and lives the the groom probably didn’t intend to marry but had to, if the baby didn’t survive then he had a near miss and unlikely to marry the mother.

If a year or more passes before the mother marries then the groom is unlikely to be the father of the child. Of course you should double check to see if there is any reason why the couple didn’t marry earlier.

Then there is a case where a pregnant woman finds a man to marry her just so the she can say she is married when the baby is born. The groom will be long gone by then.

All food for thought! Hard to prove any of the above too.

.

Yes, my ancestor was born July 1784, so probably conceived in October 1783. Her mother Susan, 18 at the time of conception, was the daughter of a Bethnal Green weaver.

Her future husband was also a Bethnal Green weaver 9 years her senior. She and him had their banns read on the 9th May, 16th May and 23rd May 1784, and wed on 26th May. The daughter was born 15th July 1784 and baptised that August as the daughter of the mother and her new husband. The fact she was over 7 months pregnant at the time of marriage does make you think though, was the man she married the father, or did she find a man to marry her to attempt to "legitimise" the baby?

Always a niggling doubt that does make you wonder whether all the years of research into that line is all for nothing?

[Gone]

Funny isn't it how today's genealogists are finding so many secrets our forbearers took to the grave. They weren't worried about offspring, grandchildren or whoever not knowing the truth.
I've found lots of "anomalies" and through patience and time got to the bottom of it.
A son of 2x great grandparents, 1871 census who disappeared, to a grandson of the same couple with the same Christian name and age, but different surname 1881 census, to the 3rd person in my great grandparents grave, supposedly an orphan, taken in as a young child by my 2x great grandparents. All the same person but everyone believing the orphan story.
My Welsh aunt visited the farm where this chap had worked in the early 1900's. And old man there remembered him and produced a photo. The family resemblance was very striking, because he was the illegitimate son of my great gran's sister.
I'm very tempted to go down the DNA route, I'd be very surprised if I didn't find a few secrets, from the distant past right up to the possibility of half siblings spread around the north of England.
Could keep me going for years!
Griff

[Rena]

This thread has all the hallmarks of a "whodunnit" play.    The timing of births is questioned, and nobody gives any explanation.  It was quite common for early births if mother did heavy work at a critical time. I had a seven month pregnancy, the pregnancy ended with a breech birth due to unaccustomed exercise, something so simple as going Scottish dancing one evening then next day borrowing a neighbour's bicycle and cycling up and down a one in ten hill.

I once picked out an early 1900s photo from a series of one thousand Lipton photos taken on board a ship because the anonymous chap stood to attention like my late OH.  I sent it to my brother-in-law and he thanked me for sending him a photo of his Uncle Wm (who manufactured paint) and Aunt Jenny.  The trait my late OH received from his ancestors was to be independent.  He had one year of being employed and decided he wanted to be self employed.  This trait runs right through his tree, (one female ancestor made bonnets, then opened up her own hat shop).  This trait has been  passed down to a grandson who, pennyless and aged 21, set up his own company working from his mother's kitchen.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/inheritance-of-traits-by-offspring-follows-predictable-6524925/

[Kiltpin]

I would not say it was the norm, but in East Anglia, couples often waited till the woman was pregnant to make sure that everything worked. 

Regards 

Chas

[Guy Etchells]

I have been thinking about this a lot recently, when is a fact a genuine fact, even details we find on a Birth Certificate, a child’s name, a fathers name or the DOB Itself? How can we prove categorically that these details are in fact correct?

https://chiddicksfamilytree.com/2021/01/27/how-do-we-differentiate-between-fact-and-fiction/

It depends on what you mean by “How can we prove categorically that these details are in fact correct?” If you mean 100% accurate we cannot, but good throrough research lessens the chance of error.

It is possible if both possible fathers are alive to take additional DNA tests that increases the accuracy of the assumption but even then there is a 1% chance of error.
We cannot even be certain that the mother of a child is a mother as a number of court casrs have shown. The most publicised is probably the Lydia Fairchild case where a court ruled on DNA evidence she was not the mother of her two children.
She was at the time pregnant with her 3rd child and the judge ordered that an observer be present at the birth, ensure that blood samples were immediately taken from both the child and Fairchild, and be available to testify. The DNA showed she was not the mother of the child she gave birth to, a later test showed that this was a case of chimerism where the person was carrying two different sets of DNA .

In other words we can never be 100% certain but with careful research and an open mind we can weigh the evidence and make a conclusion based on the facts we have.
In your blog you mention about details on gravestones, one good example of an error is found here
http://anguline.co.uk/cert/stone.html where a person died February 31st 1898, this is in a local churchyard.
I was sent a good clear typed certificate from the General Register Office Scotland of my mother's second marriage where her surname was given as IMY or GITTINS, Gittins was her married name but her maiden name was GUY  not IMY, if she was a distant ancestor I had just discovered would I have sent the certificate back for correction?
I would also add one last point never close research on any person in your tree, 65 odd years of research has taught me that more often than not there is something else that can be found out.

Cheers
Guy

[chiddicks]

I am also really interested in Ancestral Memory, are our thoughts, likes dislikes, and memories influenced by our ancestors?? There are some really great stories about this online.

[chiddicks]

I have been thinking about this a lot recently, when is a fact a genuine fact, even details we find on a Birth Certificate, a child’s name, a fathers name or the DOB Itself? How can we prove categorically that these details are in fact correct?

https://chiddicksfamilytree.com/2021/01/27/how-do-we-differentiate-between-fact-and-fiction/

It depends on what you mean by “How can we prove categorically that these details are in fact correct?” If you mean 100% accurate we cannot, but good throrough research lessens the chance of error.

It is possible if both possible fathers are alive to take additional DNA tests that increases the accuracy of the assumption but even then there is a 1% chance of error.
We cannot even be certain that the mother of a child is a mother as a number of court casrs have shown. The most publicised is probably the Lydia Fairchild case where a court ruled on DNA evidence she was not the mother of her two children.
She was at the time pregnant with her 3rd child and the judge ordered that an observer be present at the birth, ensure that blood samples were immediately taken from both the child and Fairchild, and be available to testify. The DNA showed she was not the mother of the child she gave birth to, a later test showed that this was a case of chimerism where the person was carrying two different sets of DNA .

In other words we can never be 100% certain but with careful research and an open mind we can weigh the evidence and make a conclusion based on the facts we have.
In your blog you mention about details on gravestones, one good example of an error is found here
http://anguline.co.uk/cert/stone.html where a person died February 31st 1898, this is in a local churchyard.
I was sent a good clear typed certificate from the General Register Office Scotland of my mother's second marriage where her surname was given as IMY or GITTINS, Gittins was her married name but her maiden name was GUY  not IMY, if she was a distant ancestor I had just discovered would I have sent the certificate back for correction?
I would also add one last point never close research on any person in your tree, 65 odd years of research has taught me that more often than not there is something else that can be found out.

Cheers
Guy

The last point is also very key, because new collections are being catalogued all the time, and new records are becoming available, never say never. We prove the conclusion weighing up all the evidence available at the time, but its always prudent to back again and review your work, that one new document can blow all your previous work out of the water.

[coombs]

I would not say it was the norm, but in East Anglia, couples often waited till the woman was pregnant to make sure that everything worked. 

Regards 

Chas

Bridal pregnancy was quite common, I think they may have had a trial marriage, or the pregnancy sealed their fate as a couple and they wanted to make sure it happened before the patter of tiny feet. Not unusual for a birth to take place just 2 or 3 months after the wedding.

100% certainty is impossible in genealogy, you always have to allow room for a very small element of doubt, and just trust that what you have found is true. No point always wondering "Was he the biological father?" when there is nothing to say he wasn't, or "Was she the birth mother?" you will just ruin your hobby if you want total 100% certainty.