Blog
21 Jul 2010Ask the Expert – paternity ponderings
Our expert Stephen Rigden, pictured right, answers your questions.
From Ruth Monnier in Brisbane, Australia:
‘I’m wondering if you can help me with a paternity query. I have noticed that in some baptismal registers the father’s name is left blank and it sometimes may also state that the baby was illegitimate. Also, on a birth certificate the name of the father may be missing and the baby has the same surname as the mother.
I’m wondering what the laws and norms were for what surname a baby could legally be given and what had to be written on the birth certificate? Did the parents have to be married for the baby to have the father’s surname? Did the parents have to be married for the baby’s father’s name to be written on the birth certificate? Was the father’s permission needed? It’s obviously different to today.’
Steve says:
‘Thanks very much for your question, Ruth. I can only really speak with regard to English and Welsh birth and baptism registers. My understanding is that, in practice if not in law, the birth of a child would be registered with the names of both parents in three different circumstances.
Firstly, of course, if the parents were legally married. There are some variations on this. For example, a legally married couple in, say, their 40s may present the child as their own legitimate offspring when in fact it was the illegitimate child of their unmarried daughter: they are not the actual parents but the child is registered as if they were. Or a married couple may register the birth or baptism of a child as if it were both of theirs whereas the father may have been a different man; naturally, the husband may or may not know that he is not the father. What we family historians have to work with is the evidence of the documentary record of birth or baptism, which may not necessarily correspond to the actual biological parentage of the child in question.
Secondly, if the mother of the child or both parents purported to be legally married and the registrar (by which I mean either the civil registrar or his/her ecclesiastical equivalent) was none the wiser. In the latter regard, if the registrar suspected that the mother or the parents were not married (for example, if the woman was known to him by repute, or the community was small and the personal circumstances of its inhabitants generally known), presumably he would ask for evidence to be provided and, if not produced to his/her satisfaction, the child would be registered under the mother’s name only (subject to the third circumstance below).
Thirdly, if the parents acknowledged that they were not married but the father accepted paternity and was present, with the mother, at the time of registration. You would then have the father given on the certificate as, for example, John Smith and the mother as Mary Brown. The child’s forenames are given in the appropriate field in the register but there is not a separate dedicated field for the child’s surname. Such children are, therefore, often indexed by the General Register Office in their birth indexes under the surnames of both parents. This is also why, when the registrar does include the surname in the child’s forename field, you tend to get doubling up in the index – i.e., such names as William Smith Smith (probably also indexed as William Smith Brown).
I suspect that the norms varied at different times and with different registrars, communities and faiths. Where illegitimate children were concerned, for example, not a few Calvinist Ministers in Scotland habitually filled their baptism registers with such pitiless phrases as ‘begotten in fornication’.
To summarise, if the name of the father is blank on the certificate, all you can reliably read into this is that his identity is (on the basis of this certificate) unknown to you. In reality, the identity of the father may have been unknown to the mother if there were two or more candidates, as it were; or his identity may have been known to the mother but he himself may have been unaware of his paternity; or he may have denied paternity, righteously or otherwise; or he may have been in a long-term stable or periodic relationship with the mother but was not present at registration.
As for the actual law in these matters, I only have immediately to hand a facsimile reprint of the 1901 ‘Suggestions For The Guidance Of The Clergy Relative To The Duties Imposed Upon Them By The Marriage And Registration Acts’. This is silent on the question of questionable paternity at birth registration. For marriages, however, it gives the following advice:
‘Persons of Illegitimate Birth are sometimes unwilling or unable to state the Name and the Rank or Profession of their Fathers. If, on these Particulars being asked for, there be any hesitation or reluctance to state them, no further inquiry need be made, and Columns 7 and 8 may be left blank; lines in ink should then be drawn through the blank spaces.’
Perhaps there are some findmypast.co.uk readers willing to share details of their own experiences of finding illegitimate ancestors?’
If you’d like to send your question to Steve, please register or opt to receive newsletters in My Account.
My father was led to believe that his father died at sea, it was not until his mother died that he found out that he was illegitimate, by that time he was 63 years of age, so you can imagine what a shock it was !
Tracing the family history, I found at the time of my father’s conception a young man living in the same area whose second first name and surname were names given to my father as first names, although his father’s name was left blank on the birth certificate.
Another family member confirmed, through her research that he was indeed the father, whose parents had moved him very quickly away from the area.
He lived to be an old man without (according to the records) any children by the woman he married three years after my father was born in 1863.
I hope this will help someone to find their roots !
My paternal grandfather’s Birth Certificate of the mid-19thCentury shows no details of his father but he was given the surname of his widowed mother, who had been widowed some four years before his birth. She subsequently married a widower – who had family – and we now believe that grandfather was entitled to that man’s name. Another odd feature of the Birth Certificate is that no street address was given for place of birth – merely the name of the West Sussex parish, which was not that of my great grandmother’s normal residence ! The deduction to be drawn is that great grandmother – to avoid scandal – moved a few miles away from home to deliver her child.
In days before maternity units when almost no births occurred in hospital, a midwife would often have a couple of rooms at her home where local women might go to have their babies.
So David M. might be correct in his suggestion of a scandal being avoided, or it might be that mum happened to live just over the parish boundary from the midwife’s house, so the parish of birth was different to that where mum lived.
Another case that I have seen in an Australian baptism for an ancestor where the father’s name was left blank and the child recorded with the mother’s married name, the father having died six weeks earlier. I thought it strange that the father was not listed as ‘deceased’ at the time since the couple had been married, but there is no record of his name or the fact the mother was a widow.
For a long time I thought this ancestor was illegitimate and it wasn’t until I started searching for his mother’s origins that I unravelled the mystery. Rather than being an illegitimate child, he was the youngest of seven children who’s father had drowned shortly before his birth.
Hope this might help someone else.
I understand that it was custom for quite a long time to not include a father’s name if he was not around to claim paternity. A child born after the father’s death, as in Dickens’ novel about David Copperfield, was regarded as ‘posthumous’ and, therefore, had no claim to inherit anything from his father.
Thank you Jenny. My grandmothers birth record did have her father’s last name, but his full name was left blank, had his occupation and place born. I knew he had died in a carriage accident, but no death date record. I concluded he must have died around my grandmothers birth or right after/ before her mother registered her birth. Or she was mad at him ! Her parents marriage records and my grandmothers own marriage record names him. Their records also said he was born in England,.I just found him & his birth family in Nova Scotia. They were German but England own Nova Scotia at that time ..And he was born Albert not David Albert as was on the records. What a journey…
In my family, I have so far found three women who lied and registered their children’s births as if they were legitimate. In one case, in the London area in the 1880s, the woman eventually married the children’s father (our cousin), but after five children, he seems to have taken up with her youngest sister. There was no divorce, but the sister also registered her five children as if they were legitimate. The children of both families all used their father’s surname.
The third woman had a terrible situation. Her husband had been committed to a lunatic asylum, and he would spend the rest of his life there. No divorce, and she’d been left with two young boys to raise. She worked as a housekeeper, and when her daughter was born she registered the child with the surname of her employer. On the following census, the baby was living in the same home as them, listed with her mother’s surname but as “adopted daughter” of the householder, who was a widower. This child continued to use her mother’s surname.
Seems we have a lot of responses from Australia and wonder if they can help me?
My great grandfather was born in 1881, Frank Oakley. At the time of the 10 year census of that year, he was listed at the local “workhouse” with his mother and as with the previous reply’s, had his mother’s surname, without any father’s name. However, after that census (1881) there is no record of his mother, Kate Oakley, on any marriage, death register or anywhere I have been able to trace. She just disappeared!!
However. in the mid 1800′s, an uncle of Kate Oakley left England to go to Australia and I wondered if Kate also left England after the birth of her son, to escape the situation, scandal or whatever, to start a new life in Australia, under the umbrella of her uncle?
However, I have been unable to trace or find, any records from ship passenger lists of her leaving English shores after 1881.
I have tried the Australian authorities to try and assertain immigrants into Australia around those times, without success, as the questions asked of such people entering then, were not robust enough to prove/disprove the information, ages, correct names of information given!
My great grandfather was brought up by local people near to his birthplace in England, who appeared on his subsequent marriage certificate, but I would dearly like to trace his mother’s (my gggrandmother on my father’s side) and any family descendants in Australia that may have records of the family and/or relatives going back to the 1840′s to now. My email address is phil_oakley1@hotmail.com
Thank you
My father-in-law had told me that his grandfather Herbert Simmons was illegitimate, and indeed there was no father’s name listed on his birth certificate. Nor could I find a birth certificate for his younger brother, although his older sister had both parents shown on her birth certificate.
By the time of the next census (1871) Herbert’s mother Margaret had remarried and the marriage certificate shows her as a widow, although I have yet to find a death entry for her first husband.
Then I read somewhere that mothers of illegitimate children would often reveal a father’s name to the parish priest when the child was baptised. So I searched the relevant parish registers, and discovered baptism entries for both boys, giving both parents’ names with the father being Margaret’s first husband.
Hope this suggestion might help others to find an unknown father.
A MARRIAGE certificate often reveals the name of the father of those born out of wedlock. In my experience, the children often know who their father was and name him on their marriage. Although sometimes the father’s first name is wrong, his surname and his occupation is usually right (this may apply for those who’ve lost their father early in life too). In one case, an illigitimate daughter named her actual father on her SECOND marriage certificate, not her first, which shows why it’s a good idea to send for the record of second marriages etc. In another case, the father of an illigitimate son was recorded in the PARISH register, but left BLANK in the civil register, so there may still be a record of the father, even if you find that there is no father’s name on your ancestor’s marriage certificate! Jayne.
My g.g.grandmother, Selina Naish, had 10 children and never married. For the nine that I’ve got certificates for 8 were registered as the children of a fictious father, John Naish, and the only clue to this is the different maiden names she used each time. So the Registrar obviously accepted what he was told. The youngest child was registered with the name of his father Uriah Alsop and Selina gave Naish as her maiden name. The eldest daughter, whose birth does not appear to be registered, when she married named her father as Uriah Alsop Naish. Finally after 20 plus years of looking I found six of the younger children baptised as the children of Uriah and Selina and they’d be using the surname Alsop for several years at this point. Other information confirmed Selina was born Naish.
So certificates are only as accurate as the information provided to the Registrar.
On another family, I found children baptised under the mother’s birth surname, but the couple had married. However, the vicar disapproved as the mother/wife was the sister of the man’s first wife – which was not permitted at the time. There are notes in the register stating this and the parish where the wedding took place. I checked the PRs and found the marriage.
Has everyone forgotten about the poor unions and parish relief documents available especially for the mid 19th to early 20th century.
Bastardy examinations can often been found amongst church and civil records lodged at county archives.
In some cases I have seen in parish registers a margin note of “alleged bastard child of ……….. naming the possible but in most cases probable father.
I have experience of illegitimacy in Scotland. One of my great-grandmothers and her mother were both born out of wedlock in Dallas, near Elgin. Clearly the minister in these cases was a relatively tolerant man, for in both cases the father’s name was given in the register although there had been no marriage.
A history of Dallas families surmised who the father had been in the case of my great-great-grandmother but it was reckoned to be unproven gossip. She went on to have two more illegitimate children.
My great-grandmother’s parents were cousins and he went off to Canada where he pursued his profession of joiner. I would love to know whether he was sent away from an undesirable liaison (she being illegitmate and a cousin) or fled to avoid his responsibilties!
Interesting subject! I have a related situation…the lady who I think is my great-grandma (Mary Rylett) gave birth to 9 children of which she lost 6 (mostly boys) as infant deaths – with no father’s details shown on any of the official records. The births and early-childhood deaths all happened in Sydney, over a 20 year period from 1880 to around 1900.
Later references (in South Africa) show Mary as the wife of my great-grandfather, Alfred Boyett, although I can find no actual records of their marriage. They moved to Yarrawonga in Victoria for a few years before emigrating to South Africa.
The only rational explanation I can conclude is that the 3 surviving girls were probably his children, as were the boys who died as infants (particularly as they were all given the name of Alfred as either their first or middle name), and that my great-grandfather was travelling between Sydney and South Africa establising his building business in Johannesburg during the intervening years. I assume the couple never married but by moving from NSW to Victoria and then emigrating, they could easily call Mary ‘Mrs Boyett’ with no-one being none the wiser!
If anyone has had a similar situation with a more-proven explanation, I would be really pleased to hear about it!
It may not be known generally, but the “Legitimacy Act 1926″ required illegitimate births to be formally registered. This happened searching for my aunt who I thought was born 25th March 1927, with a second birth certificate issued then, but was in fact born 7th November 1915. My nan did not marry the father until 13th July 1917! Even then she was 6 months pregnant with my mother! Needlessly to say (her mother being a very strict Catholic) they had to marry in a register office!!
Which country are you referring to when stating the “Legitimacy Act 1926″ please? I have started to uncover similar curiosities in the New Zealand Historical BDM’s online. I found a death record for a woman that I wasn’t sure how to tie into the family tree, it gave her date of birth as 27 July 1909. I then much later discovered a birth registration for the same woman for 1924 naming her parents. It turned out that she was a first cousin of my grandfather. I wondered if she had been adopted in 1924 but had always known her correct date of birth in 1909. But upon reading your post above looked at it again and her parents married in 1912, her father filed for divorce from his first wife in 1907 and this was finalized in 1911. The birth of another child by his second wife was registered in 1912. Would a “Legitimacy Act” in New Zealand have caused the parents to register the birth of their 15yr old daughter in 1924?
I have a few of these interesting births in the history part. The ones I will deal with are my son and father. My son when born I was not in contract with his father and asked if I put his name on the registration papers would it appear. The answer was no it would not appear as we were not married and he was not signing the paper. This was in 1982 Australia, lucky I did put the father’s name on the paper as we later married and had other children. My husband would had to adopt my 1st son his son if his name had not been put on there in the 1st place. My son is now registered in 1984 not 1982 as he was born a note redirects someone to the new certificate. My father’s mother had an affair both were married to other people, so my father was registered as having his mother’s married name. When he was in his late teens his real father’s wife died and his parents married, his name was changed to his father’s. He now goes by his birth name which means when I put my father’s name on papers I list the name he had when I was born as it is too much too have things changed. Explaining why my maiden name is AIKEN instead of TURNER has some tracing the family interested.
We spent many fruitless hours attempting to find the birth registration of our grandmother (father’s mother). She appeared on a couple of censuses as the eldest daughter of the family. When she married our grandfather all the columns were completed re brides father etc. It was only when we searched under her mother’s maiden name that we found her. She had been born about 6 months before her mother married and evidently took her mother’s new surname although I don’t believe there was any formal adoption. We are left wondering whether her mother’s husband was, in fact, her father and whether she knew about the question mark over her parentage
Has anyone experienced a baptismal record (1850s) where only the father is listed (but mother was living)? I suspect the “baptismal” father listed was not the real father. He married the mother about 6 months earlier. She had the same last maiden as him (and already had one illegitimate daughter), though they do not seem to be related. I found banns published (2 only) for this woman and another man in her home parish (near by) after her marriage to the “baptismal” father, but before the birth of this second child. The “baptismal” father was a recent widower with 3 small children. Should I conclude that she was forced into the marriage and kept there by him claiming her child? The “baptismal” father and the mother are both listed on the civil registration which occurred after the baptism. There are no further records for the child because he died around age 2.
Hm… I wonder what the rule was regarding registering children when the mother herself was not yet a legal adult – especially after 1900 (in NSW).
My story: I have a grand-aunt who is at least a half sister to my grandfather (same mother on both birth certificates). However, in her case the father’s name is blank… My grandfather is born after his parents were married.
In this case it gets more interesting as said grand-aunt could pass almost as an identical twin for her younger (half)sister, and doesn’t look all that much like her mother. But when you put a photo of my great-grandfather beside her the resemblance is also there.
Oh yes, and my great-grandfather as he was dying told his children he had a secret to share… only to change his mind and took it to the grave with him.
When I first started doing family research I looked for my uncle under what I lated found out to have been his adopted name, only to find that I couldn’t find his birth details. It later transpired that he was born using his mother’s maiden name and adopted by the man she later married (therefore he could use the same name as his mother’s married name making him appear legitimate). We do not know if the man that my grandmother married was his father or not or whether there was someone else who was the father. My uncle was born 9 months before my grandmother married her first husband. If the child was the son of the man she married why didn’t he marry her earlier while she was still pregnant (as was common practice) and not several months after he was born? So we are very confused as to my uncle’s true father.
The 19th century parish register of baptisms of Rochdale (Lancashire) contain many allegations of paternity. Searching original records (which we used to do routinely before the computer stepped in) should always be done when practicable — or contract someone to do it for you.
You have to look beyond online resources to unravel relationships that are outside “the norm”. As divorce once required an Act of Parliament so was beyond the means of most people, it was common for there to be no marriage for a second partnership. Parish registers often have additional information in margin notes and so do wills and monumental inscriptions.
We have such a case in our direct line, where 8 “baseborn” children between 1800 and 1824 were baptised at Lydd with only the mother’s name, Elizabeth George. She was described as spinster or unmarried in PRs, but the babies were given thesurname Leeds as a middle name, although the father himself was never named. This is always a good clue to the identity of fathers and we have several other instances of this in 18th and early 19th c. Fortunately, the will of William Leeds of Lydd was found at the County Record Office and this confirmed the paternity of all of these children. He had one previous legitimate son by his legal wife, this son died in childhood after 3 of the others had been born,and was buried with his paternal grandparents, but I have not discovered what happened to his legal wife, although the 1841 describes him as a widower, however, his long term partner was already dead as Elizabeth seems to have died soon after the baptism of their last daughter in 1824. I found Elizabeth buried in Woodchurch parish some distance away, possibly because she was visiting relatives as there are long-standing George families there, but because there is no marriage, I can’t identify Elizabeth’s own parents, and the only Elizabeth of her approximate birth age on IGI appears to be someone else (or so I am assured by other researchers)so her own baptism seems to be missing from records although I have checked the Lydd parish where her children were born, and Woodchurch where she was buried(that record was a piece of luck as the vicar noted her age and parish of residence, which is why I believe she was visiting or recuperating at time of death). I can’t find any trace of the last baby after baptism in either parish, or in 1841 census, and she is not mentioned in her father’s 1856 will along with the other siblings, so I suspect there was an unrecorded death/burial before civil registration started in 1837. None of these children seem to appear in parish poor relief and settlement records, probably because they were always provided for by their father – the youngest son and his family were still living with him in 1841 and inherited the house – the Leeds line has been traced back to 1500s, often with the help of very detailed wills. Their Leeds-George descendants used either surname,or both,often changed from one to the other in consecutive census records, all of them have been traced through 19th and 20th c.
……. but the origin of their 18th c. mother has been driving me mad for 15 years ! If anyone has any other ideas I would love to hear them.
An fascinating dialogue is worth comment. I think that it is best to write more on this matter, it may not be a taboo topic however generally persons are not sufficient to speak on such topics. To the next. Cheers