do i have the right father for illigimate sarah wilkes, darlaston 1820?

[bradelkington]

Hi there I was hoping someone could kindly help me confirm the father of my illigimate third great grandmother sarah wilkes.
She was baptised at darlaston on 2nd February 1820 abode catherines cross to Hannah wilkes (born 1796)

Her mother hannah wilkes married JOSEPH CHELTON (spelt also as CHILLINGTON and CHILTON) at all saints west Bromwich 4 December 1820 ( only 10 months after my sarah's birth? does that mean anything?)

sarah wilkes married Robert harper in 1838 at tipton, no father shown for ethier of them, she was widowed in 1848 and remarried 9 November 1852 at St Bartholomew in Wednesbury to james Duffield  father shown as joseph chillington crossed out and corrected as Chilton a labourer

Joseph and Hannah chillington/Chilton has 4 children I believe after marriage a mary 1826, another mary 1831, joseph 1834 and Rachel 1838. Hannah died 1868 widow of joseph a horse driver. joseph died 1873 I believe Walsall parish.

I was wondering  if because joseph Chilton/chillington married my fourth great grandmother 10 months after birth of illigimate sarah he could be her father and she names him on second marriage cert.

Also found marriage of a joseph chillington to phoebe whitehouse in 1815 tipton a daughter together named Hannah baptised tipton 1819 father joseph a soldier, phebe seems to marry again in 1820 in sedgley? could they have divorced same time as sarah wilkes was born 1820 hence being illimgmate?

Are there any bastardy bonds for darlaston in 1820?

sorry its a lot just would love to crack this one

[lizdb]

You will never know who her father was.
If Joseph married her mother when she was 10 mths old, then he would have been the father figure in her life so she could well have named him on a marriage cert as her father. Perhaps the fact that she didnt name him on one marriage could be said to indicate that he wasnt actually her father.
He may have been, he may not have been. If we are moving into the realm of guessing, then I would guess that he wasnt -that he married her mum and took on the illegitimate baby she already had.  As she grew up she looked on Joseph as her father as she knew no other, but was aware he was not her biological father. At her marriage the vicar asked her fathers name in such a way that she felt she could not name him, or maybe she did, maybe she said "my stepfather was xxx" but the vicar deemed that not appropiate to record, taking the term father literally. At the second marriage maybe the question of "father" was dealt with differently by that vicar.

Re the divorce possibility, that would have been highly unlikely.

[bradelkington]

Hi lizdb thanks for your help, I did think the same as what you suggest. The only thing that made me think there could be a possibility of finding out was when I researched abit about illigimate ancestors and found out sometimes there was b*stardy records/bonds where the illigimate mother would have to go to court and name the biological father?

I researched more into Hannah wilkes mother of illigimate sarah, she was baptised 23 sept 1798 to Samuel wilkes and lettice fletcher. they had another daughter named phoebe born 1795 who also had a illigmate daughter named Hannah also residing at catherines cross in 1819? could I go as far as presuming the two sisters could of been prostitutes at the time?

[groom]

That's a huge jump to presume that. Children have always been born to unmarried mothers, I expect all of us have at least one in our tree. There are lots of circumstances why the parents didn't marry and unfortunately in most cases there is no way of telling who the biological father was.

[youngtug]

That is a doubtful supposition, there was a lot more acceptance of illegitimacy  in this period than later in the 1900s. Often people could not get married for various reasons, including stipulations in their contract of employment,such as apprenticeships but also many house servants could only marry with permission.

[youngtug]

Snap groom

[bradelkington]

Thanks for all the help, im still learning even after 8 years of research!
I guess I wont waste time and money looking more into joseph Chilton/chillington then

Thanks

[dionysus]

I think the others are right.  The strongest conclusion you are likely to achieve is that the circumstantial evidence indicates the balance of probability favours Chilton being the father.

It seems much more likely that Chilton's first wife died.

You may already have this and I don't know how local you are, but in the 1851 census they were recorded at Catherine's Cross, which was a road going broadly north from Pinfold Street and now named Wolverhampton Road.

In 1841, though, they were at Buttcroft (sic).  Going on old OS mapping, Butcroft was a little way east, in the area that today includes Hill Street and Alexandra Road.  Butcroft is also shown on the West Midlands Birmingham AtoZ in the same place.  There is a Butcroft Gardens today.  Still, it's not very far from Catherine's Cross and they would probably have used the same facilities, so baptism at St Lawrence makes sense.