'Subsequently married' or 'now married to'

[AussieScotfindingfamily]

Hi all,

Looking at a birth registration for an illegitimate ancestor, obviously a father's name wasn't listed, but by her marriage, a man is listed as her mother's now husband ie; Jane D now married to Thomas M...

I cant remember which record I have also seen that the mother had 'subsequently married to' ... on the registration.

Is it possible (being that the marriage of the Mother and 'father' occurred only months after the birth of the illegitimate ancestor) that the man she married is in fact the child's biological father?

By the time of the child's death registration, the 'father' is named as him. There are no corrected entries on the birth registration and I cant find any sheriffs paternity decree relating to this child. her death is indexed under 3 different surnames: the 'Father's' surname, and her two married surnames.

I am just not sure if the terms ' subsequently married' or 'now married to' are the clue I need in comfortably accepting this man's paternity

Thanks all in advance for your insight. 

[Forfarian]

Looking at a birth registration for an illegitimate ancestor, obviously a father's name wasn't listed, but by her marriage, a man is listed as her mother's now husband ie; Jane D now married to Thomas M...
Is it possible (being that the marriage of the Mother and 'father' occurred only months after the birth of the illegitimate ancestor) that the man she married is in fact the child's biological father?

No. Or at least, it is extremely unlikely.

In Scotland, an illegitimate child is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents, provided that the parents would have been free to marry when the child was conceived, so there would be no reason to record on the child's marriage certificate a fact showing that the child was born before the marriage.

As for the death registration, it's not unusual for an informant to get a fact like this wrong.

I think the terms 'subsequently married' or 'now married to' are sufficient to justify concluding that the mother's husband is not the child's father.

[scotmum]

It's not impossible.

I have worked on research involving a child born as illegitimate in Scotland in 1880. Her mum married three years later to man she and her child had been staying with in 1881. Child brought up with her mum, step dad and their subsequent children. Step dad's surname generally used in Census returns, but her birth surname (ie her mum's maiden name), used on child's marriage record and no dad listed. Her death was indexed under her married and birth surnames, again no dad listed and her mum noted as 'afterwards married to'.

Fast forward to DNA, and from viewing matches of various descendants of the child, it soon became  obvious beyond very little doubt, that either her step-dad or one of his male siblings, was most likely her actual dad.

Something to consider, despite b/m/ds suggesting to the contrary.

That said, in your case, being 'comfortably accepting' is a choice only you know if you will be happy with, or if it will still leave you with niggling doubts. It is a choice that will not alter the fact, whatever that fact actually was (ie father/not father). If you want more certainty, then DNA might give this.

[GR2]

When and in what parish did the birth take place? If it's in the right period and the records survive, the kirk session minutes might name the father.

[dowdstree]

It may not help you but just as a point of interest my father's cousin was born in 1905 in Dundee.  Both parents attended the Birth Registration but as they were not married at the time she is marked as Illigitimate. Her parents subsequently married in 1908.

On the left hand side of the original Birth Certificate is this notation -

Re-Registered in the District of St Mary & St Peter on 2nd February 1947. Why it was done at this late date is unknown.

Dorrie

[GR2]

Why it was done at this late date is unknown.

Dorrie

There will be a reason to make folk go to the trouble of re-registering. A great uncle and aunt of mine had a daughter before they married. As my uncle was away in France with the army at the time of the birth it was registered by my aunt and the father's name could not appear on the certificate. Shortly before the daughter married, her father went to re-register the birth, the new certificate including his name and the date of the marriage.

[doolittle72]

It is always possible that the mother may have been examined by the Kirk Session.  Look to see if the Kirk Session records are available for the parish.  You can find out on Scotland's People.  She may have reported the father's name there.  You can only try every avenue.
Doolittle 

[AussieScotfindingfamily]

Thanks every one for all your input and suggestions.

I will keep trying to dig a little deeper before accepting this man as her father, though I am glad she had someone to look out for her regardless.

Cheers!

[djcrtoye]

On my ggrandfather's marriage certificate that phrase is mentioned.  Through digging very deeply I found out that his mother was not married to the man mentioned.  He didn't know that he was illegitimate up until his death.  This phrase was also mentioned on his death certificate.  Maybe trying to give the veneer of being born legitimate.