Is it the real mother on the baptism record?

[100%Gog]

Hi

I have an ancestor who was born illegitimate in the 1850's. I have a baptism and birth certificate for this ancestor with a mother's name but no father.

The suspicion I have is that the mother shown on both documents may not be the real mother. There has been a suggestion that the real mother is the younger sister of the woman in the documents. The younger sister was a minor 15-16 yo at the time of the child's birth.

The child appears in the 1861 census at the home of the "documented mother's" eldest sister, the youngest sister is also living at the property. The mother is no where to be seen and in fact disappears from the records after the baptism. The child along with the younger sister are listed as boarders with the eldest sister. Sadly the younger sister dies a few days after the census aged 21 yo. The child is then brought up by the eldest sister.

At the time, families and society frowned upon illegitimate births. I know it was common for an illegitimate child to be sent to live with relatives instead of the birth mother. My thought is that the family may have taken this a step further and the mother's were swapped to reduce the stigma of an illegitimate birth by a minor?

Is it legally and/or ecclesiastically possible that a surrogate person could be entered as the mother?

Thanks
100%Gog

[Stanwix England]

I suppose it is possible, though I believe it would be illegal. Both in secular and church law.

I think that the named birth mother leaving, isn’t necessarily strong proof that she wasn’t the actual birth mother. I’ve seen examples in my own family tree of birth mothers leaving a child with relatives.

Sometimes it was because it made more financial sense for them to go and work and have the child looked after by relatives.

Sometimes it was because they married and the husband wasn’t willing to have another mans child in their house.

Sometimes they just weren’t good mothers, and just upped and left.

[heywood]

Illegitimate births were not always frowned upon but it could also be that a relative raised the child as their own and this was accepted.
You mention ‘a suggestion’ - is that from the time and handed down through the family?

I find your explanation a bit confusing - sorry.
Are you saying that the child was registered and baptised as the child of an aunt?
Then, in 1861 was at the home of another aunt?
How is the relationship shown?

When you mention the mother’ who disappears - is that the one on the records as you have the 1861 census with ‘the younger sister’ who I think you believe could be the real mother.

In reply though to your question, I would think that whoever registered /baptised the child and claimed to be the mother would be accepted.
Maybe if the family were regulars at the church, the minister would know however.

[coombs]

Also how old was the "documented" mother when the baby was born?

[100%Gog]

Apologies if my explanation is a bit confusing. In answer to all the questions.

1. There was a family rumour ("suggestion") that the mother on the baptism/birth certificate was not the real mother and that the true mother was this person's youngest sister.

2. The woman on the birth documents disappears after the birth. Never to be seen again in the records.

3. The child goes to live with the woman's eldest sister. The child is initially listed as a border in 1861 but in 1871 census is listed as a nephew.

4. The youngest sister (potential real mother) also lived with the eldest sister and also listed as a boarder. She dies a few days after the 1861 census and the child remains with the eldest sister until an adult.

5. All three women are known to be sisters as I have previous records of them all, both official and personal family records. There is a large age difference between the sisters, the eldest sister was born 1821, the second sister (the disappeared documented mother) born 1823 and the youngest sister (suspected mother) born 1838. There are other siblings as well hence the age range but these are not relevant to the story.

6. The woman recorded as the mother on the birth records, was 33 yo at the time.

As I previously said this was just a family rumour. I asked the question if it was legal to have someone listed on the birth certificates as the mother when they were not. The consensus of opinion is that it is illegal, which is what I thought. The comments made by Stanwix England are valid and it is more than likely one of those outcomes is the true story.

Thanks 

[Jebber]

In one branch of my family I found a couple with a number of children all registered to the same parents. I had to take the information as correct.  I had no reason to think otherwise and as the relationship was quite distant they didn't warrant further research.

It was only by chance that I later learned that the second youngest child was actually the illegitimate child of the eldest daughter. It was through watching the programme Heir Hunters that  I discovered the truth. Because an inheritance was involved the Heir Hunters had to dig more deeply into the family regardless of the cost.

[aghadowey]

It would be interesting to know the cause of death youngest sister who you suspect might be the real mother of the child.

[heywood]

As Jebber points out, it did happen. Whilst it may have been illegal, I don’t think any ‘proof’ of motherhood had to be shown when registering a child then.
Was the ‘documented mother’ married?
If so, did her husband disappear too?
If she was single, then why try to disguise an illegitimate birth.