Genealogy Chat

I have something similar case back in the 1860s.

George Wareham married Mary Ward. They had 5 children in total. The first three are all OK. The fourth child was born in Nov/Dec 1860 (cert is not very clear). Mother shows as Mary Wareham (her married name). No father. No maiden name given.

5th child - Robert - is not registered. Or if he is registered it would be under a different name maybe ...

However, father George - died in May 1861. So if 5th unregistered child is George's son he was born posthumously.

I have wondered whether 4th and 5th child were not George's children but it does not seem that likely. Mum and the three other children were living with her parents in a very small cottage in Hertford. Cannot find George on 1861 census and he dies at his sister's house so parents may have split up.

No clues on 4th child's birth cert as to who father is though ...

They were all baptised in Hertford and the first three show George as father, the 4th shows George deceased, as father and the 5th just shows Mary. However, these children were all baptised when they were about 18 months old so maybe she was a bit embarrassed naming George as father of 5th child ??

Questions, questions, questions ...

Thank you Kath,Kate, Reggie and Deb,


Kath, There was a Brother to the Father. The Brother went to America. Both worked on Ships. I thought exactly the same as you but wanted to see if anyone came up with the same idea. You did!

Kate and Reggie, I agree with you too!

They both seem totally unreliable and I don't think the so called Father is the Father otherwise his name would have been on the certificate.

Deb, Yes its possible. However I'm inclined to think the Brother may have had some involvement. I would like J ( living relative) to have a DNA test but with xmas on its way money is needed for other things.

Blossom, Thank you for your contribution too! That's a thought! So Mum and Dad might not have been married? Never thought of that. Just took it for granted they were married.
Kath, you said that too!

Has anyone any more thoughts?

Janet

Certs don't always tell a story and they're not always accurate.

My very close relative's birth cert names the mother, no father mentioned. The mother's surname was actually her married name but she withheld her maiden name.

We went around in circles for months because of this but eventually put it all together. The mother was married to the father but left him shortly before the birth.

We know through DNA testing that the man who married this woman was the father of my relative. To this day, we don't know why she withheld her maiden name or her husbands name. It's just one of those strange mysteries.

Could this be the same situation in your case? Could they have seperated for whatever reason and then gotten back together later? She may have thought that she couldn't name the father because she was seperated but wanted the child to have his/her father's name?




Deb:)

Maybe the child was the result of an extra-marital relationship.......

They don't seem to have been exactly reliable people...............

As the child was registered under his mother's surname, it seems unlikely that her husband fathered him.

Reg

I think, if the parents are not married at the time of the birth, the father's details can only go on if he is present at the registration or signs something to give consent on his behalf.

But I have never come across a married couple where the dad's details aren't on.

The only thing I can think of is that his "father" wasn't actually his father, but if his mother was married to his "father" at the time, he would be considered the father legally, whether or not he was biologically.

Just had another thought. Could the child have been fathered by his supposed father's brother - who would obviously have the same surname, thus giving the child his middle name. It could be a reason why the child wasn't brought up by the couple, but it seems strange that he didn't go into the orphanage until he was 3. Would make more sense if he was given up at birth.

Kath. x

It seems strange that the child had his supposed father's surname as a middle name if the father wasn't actually named as his father on the birth certificate.

To me it would indicate that the parent's were NOT married at the time of the birth. I wonder if the 1933 marriage was bigamous and this was realised afterwards. Perhaps that is why the couple went abroad - to get away frm any scandal?

I just can't think of a reason why the child would have the middle name of this person if he was NOT the father, but also can't see why the father isn't named properly as the father if the couple were married.

Does the child have his mother's married or maiden name for a surname? It should be her married name if he was born after she married. This would mean that his middle and surname would both be the same.

Kath. x

I know this may be an obvious answer but I wanted to see what GR members thoughts were on this. I do not need any look ups as I have all documents I need but would welcome your thoughts/ideas.

I have a living relative who was placed in an orphanage when he was 3 years old. He was told the man his Mum married was his Dad. His Mother and ( supposedly) Father visited him many times in the orphanage until 1939. In 1947 they left the country. They never saw their son again. His Mum is named on the birth cert but his so called Dad isn't. His Mum married so called Dad in Sept 1933. In Dec 1934 my relative was born. That is a good 14 months to have a baby.

The question I put to you is why would the Father not be named on the birth certificate when this couple were clearly married? I have my own thoughts but I wanted to see if anyone came up with a further idea. I just think it is strange that they were married but Father isn't on the certificate. Then they leave the child behind. Why?

( Note that my relatives middle name is the same as the Fathers surname. My relatives last name is the same as his Mother's maiden name.)

I welcome any ideas.
Thanks in advance.