Men in Carmarthen not marrying their partners in the 19th century puzzle

[osprey]

Could it be a question of perceived class?

Mary Michael, the mother of the children of David Walter Hughes was the daughter of a shoemaker.

She was enumerated as widow in 1861 census, with another child Harriet who can't be David Walter's
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7ZM-YMQ
but married as a spinster in 1865 to Thomas Davies

Ann Jones, the mother of Charles Henry's children, was possibly the daughter of David Jones, a mason. The baptism of Lettice Jones from the 1841 census has her parents as David Jones, mason & Mary, likewise the baptism of her brother William.

 

[Caliandris]

I did wonder about the class prejudice thing... it just seems very strange to have multiple children with a woman and still not to marry her - even after both his parents had died.  Ann Jones is my 3x great grandmother, and Charles Henry Hughes my 3x great grandfather.  I have no hang ups about the children out of wedlock thing, just a great curiosity to know why they did this.

There were tales that Sir Lewis Morris was made to marry his partner despite her class being inferior to his, in order to be knighted and not embarrass the queen, but I am not sure the tale is true, as his children seem to be well within his marriage.

I'm confused about your information on Ann Jones.  I had assumed due to the relative ages, that Mary Jones (50) was the mother of Ann Jones, and Lettice Jones who is 75 years old on the census for 1841 might be Mary Jones's mother in law?  I am assuming you have misread the census to say 15 instead of 75 may be?  I have always assumed that she would have the married name of Jones and an unknown maiden name. There is another Lettice Jones next door or in the same house (hard to tell) but from a different family grouping, aged 55. I cannot know if that Lettice Jones is related to the other. Jones is a very common name, of course, and while Lettice isn't common, I have often found that an unusual name can become common in a specific area, because it has been used by other families in that area.

I have collected all the information I can gather in my Jones and Hughes and Spence disambiguation file, but they are families full of brick walls I feel I have little hope of demolishing because of the impossibility of knowing if that Jones over there has any relation to this Jones over here!

[osprey]

so this 1841 census, Lettice 15 not 75 - the ages look to be descending

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7QT-6KS

this baptism
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FQRP-R6K
& William's
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FQ98-QY3
info on David's occupation on the register available on Findmypast & Ancestry.

There is another Lettice who is enumerated as 55 in 1841 and  70 on the 1851 census

[Caliandris]

If you look at the numbers on the rest of the census... I think it is 75. The ages were usually descending if you had a mother or father as the head of the family and then children, but it is very common to find that there is an elderly person in a family entry, who is older than anyone else. I did look at it again... I think it's 75 but I will have a go at it being 15.  I think Ann's father is Thomas Jones and not David, but I'm always prepared to be wrong!

[hanes teulu]

Charles was recorded as the father on the 1st baptism -
FindMyPast (transcript only)
15 Jan 1838, Henry, baptismal place Llanddarog, father Charles H Hughes, mother Anne Jones

However, only Anne appeared on the 2nd and 3rd
FindMyPast (images/transcripts)
St Peter's Carmarthen

12 Oct 1842, Maria Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Jones, abode Church Street
12 Oct 1842, Frances Anne, daughter of Anne Jones, abode Church Street

Both appeared on the 4th and 5th
6 Aug 1845, Mary Sarah, illegitimate daughter of Charles Henry Hughes, abode Quay (Street) and Ann Jones, abode Church Street, father's occpn. Attorney
25 July 1849, Charles Henry, illegitimate son of Charles Henry Hughes and Ann Jones, abode Church Street, father's occpn. Attorney at law

Wonder why the inconsistency at baptisms 2 and 3?






 

[Caliandris]

I would assume it might be because the father wasn't present? I guess the vicar would only put the father on record if the father were present and consented, like registration, but I don't know. Charles appears to take responsibility for all the children and certainly has them to live with him after the mother dies or moves, and makes arrangements for them to be supported, but I guess it's possible he may not have attended due to other commitments, or maybe he didn't think they were his?  None of it seems to make sense. 

[osprey]

Parents didn't need to be present at baptisms to be recorded in the register. There was one that came up on another post recently with names of both parents and nothing to say deceased although the parents had died within days of each other a few weeks earlier.

[Caliandris]

I can see that might be in the case of a death, but would a vicar add a man to a birth record in his absence if alive?  I don't know whether they would have been worried about that, though it isn't possible to register a father's name without his presence for civil records. I know that one ancestor of mine was made to do penance in church in the 18th century in Devon, and she was made to recite her offence, which would have included the name of the man she was accused of fornication with - although no record of him being punished for the same offence seems to exist!

[plentyn coll]

Not specific to Carmarthen but I have found these arrangements were more common than pop culture history would suggest. Based on my own research experience, rural (or small town) men were more likely to claim and care for children born out of wedlock, and often give them their surname. The children often lived with them. I've found this to be true both in Wales and the US. I have several Welsh examples of cohabitation with children and often the couple would eventually marry. Sometimes I've been unable to find a marriage record and suspected they were never legally married but it could be a lost record or other explanation.