Genealogy Forum UK

Here is a juicy one, and wondered if anybody had come across a similiar situation and could throw light on a puzzle.

My Grandfathers, 'assumed' (soon to be proven) parents originally came from the Birmingham area. Great Grandfather was initially married to smeone else and had 5 children, but apparantly he ran off with his employers daughter - who was known to be my Great Grandmother.

The 1901 census states they were then boarding, with another couple being the head of house.- so the 3 children they obviously had within that decade was also shown as boarders (and therefore relationship not shown) as not related to the Head of the household. The Great Grandmother and the children's last names appear on the list as the same as his. (There is no record of a marriage certificate though)

Then it all gets complicated!

They then moved and had another 3 children, one being my Grandather and the 1911 census shows Great Grandfather? being head of the household, my Great Grandmother as the Housekeeper and ALL 6 children (known and recognised as my Grandfathers brothers and sisters) now listed and named with his last name as their MIDDLE name and their last name as her maiden name and all noted relationship to the Head listed as (Adopted).

My Grandfather's, as with all his brothersand sisters have always grew up and were believed to have his name (the middle name on the 1911 census) as their last name (until now!) I've located and ordered the right Birth Certificates - with his name as middle name and last name as her maiden name) so awaiting the mystery to unravel.

It seems highly unlikely he wasn't the father of all of them under the circumstances, but I am wondering in those days, if you were still married to someone else, would you have to adopt your own children? Or he just didn't put his name down as the father of them, or they kept routinly adopting other peoples children ( even more unlikely) . Right old puzzle, but would welcome anyones thoughts on this.

I have a few of those and it has always been the case that the mother is having "relations" with more than one man and can't guarantee the parentage.

Quite often she is fufilling her "marital duties" withher husband whilst bonking another on the side.

When this happens with two or three children in a row you would think the husband might get a bit suspicious. Or perhaps a lot of them never see the certificate. (It is amazing how few are present when the child is being registered).

I tend to see it far more often in early Australia where co-habitation was quite common. (Lack of women and no strong church pressures made this acceptable).

By law, if a man agrees to have his name on the birth certificate, he is the legal father of the children and laws of inheritance, probate etc apply.

After 1923 this could be done retrospectively in the United Kingdom under the "Legitimacy Act".

This allowed another birth certificate to be issued with a father's name where there was not one before.

The existence of a new certificate is manually noted on the index and you can order both certificates. (My mother has two).

This makes the newly signed up father the legal father without the need to adopt, same as if he put his name on the first certificate.

If the man's name is not on the birth certificate then he must adopt the children to ensure laws of inheritance.

The formalities of adoption have changed dramatically over the last few centuries and can be quite different according to the "class" of those involved.

In some cases it was simply noted in the Parish Register and perhaps in a letter held by a legal firm that Party A has adopted Party B.

That might have been OK for middle and lower classes but upper class adoptions need far more visibility and paperwork to ensure the rights, including possible inheitance of a title, are properly given the adoptee.

Unfortunately the name of the father on the birth or baptism will never guarantee he is the biological father.

I think as more people get involved in the Deep DNA Genealogy there will be a few shocks waiting for those who thought Great Gran and Grandad were good christians

Thanks Mark

Fascinating isn't it.. and people shake their heads at Jeremy Kyle youth of today ! I'm thinking men just freely populated themselves then as they do now from what I have learnt already.

Does present another question though, how did women without a husband manage as there is so little evidence of women with jobs and no social system, what would they do if husband left for another woman leaving you with 5 kids in the first place..and I doubt any man could afford to maintain 11 children and 2 wifes!

In this case he was an artist so can imagine a bit of creative behaviour..parents hide your eyes, all coming out now.

S

Anybody with a fairly decent sized tree will have families that end up in the Work Houses and/or Union Houses.

It is good to read up on the Poor Laws and get an understanding of how things worked before and after they were introduced.

Before the Poor Laws you were very reliant of the local parish to support you in times of need.

That is why it was so important to be accepted as a member of the parish.

Otherwise, if you became poor or ill, they might transport you back to your "legal" parish.

You can see that sometimes in the early census where people kept chaing thier place of birth so they appear to beliong to the parish they are living in.

I have plenty of Irish who are suddenly born and bred in Shropshire/Staffordshire in the 1841 to 1861 census and then become Irish again in later census.

When they introduced the Poor Laws people would start manipulating years of birth so that thier children are still listed as dependants and not dragged off to a Work House.

I love reading the Bastardry entries in the parish records and local assizes. Sometime all that is needed is some old woman of the village swaerign they saw the bloke within thevicinity of the mothers abode sometimse close to the conception date. He might have just been going for a stroll on a warm summers night but apparently that is enough to get the girl pregnant. In many counties a farmer who fathered an illegitimate child had to pay a bigger fee to the mother than any other person, including nobility. So the number of accusations thrown at innocent farmers is amazing.

As for premarital children,,,,

In the admitance register for The Royal Womens Hospital in Melbourne between 1850 and 1880, I counted the number of unmarried women and it was around the 30% mark.

I think the percentage would have been higher over here in Australia but it was probably still about 20% in England for the same period.

Grab any Parish Register and look at the baptisms. Illegitimates are dotted all over the place.