Is this possible....?

[Graham9510]

I have reached a conclusion which just seems by today's standards to be (almost) far fetched. I have the birth certificate of my grt*2 grandfather George Wood, born in Weardley, 1859 to Robert Maples, an agricultural labourer. The thing is in the 1861 census George is living with his grandfather and there is no further appearance of Robert in the rest of his life. He marries in 1879 and on the marriage certificate there is only a blank space for father's name and profession.

The only Robert Maples I can find at all is a William John Robert Maples also born in Weardley but in 1846. Because I cannot find any other I am beginning to think he is the possible father which means he would have been 14 at the time of conception - George's mother would have been 18/19. Does anyone have a view or come across any information about social behaviours at the time which would either support this or otherwise,  as a line of enquiry? Alternatively if anyone can find another viable Robert Maples?

i have attached the relevant documents for info

[Ayashi]

It's interesting that she was able to register the birth as a single woman with the father's name on it.

There is this chap:

First name(s)   ROBERT
Last name   MAPLES
Gender   Male
Birth day   -
Birth month   -
Birth year   1836
Age   65
Death quarter   1
Death year   1901
District   SETTLE
County   Yorkshire
Volume   9A
Page   11
Country   England
Record set   England & Wales deaths 1837-2007
Category   Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records
Subcategory   Deaths & burials
Collections from   Great Britain

but at the moment I can't seem to find anyone obvious on census to match him.

It's also worth noting that people moved more than we might think they do. My 2nd great grandmother was born in Devon but got pregnant by a man stationed in Kent. My suspicion is that she might have been a domestic servant, been taken with a host family, got pregnant and then got sent home in disgrace.

Ayashi

[Jomot]

I would say it's entirely possible.  Although reference to the 'age of consent' generally refers to girls, it is a reasonable indicator of what age any particular society considers sexual activity to be acceptable, and in 1859 the age of consent was, I believe, 12, rising to 13 in 1875. 

[JohninSussex]

Slight correction ...

The only Robert Maples I can find at all is a William John Robert Maples also born in Weardley but in 1846. Because I cannot find any other I am beginning to think he is the possible father which means he would have been 14 12 at the time of conception - George's mother would have been 18/19.

[majm]

May I gently mention that, like all other GRO birth certs for that era, the baby did not have a SURNAME.   

I am not sure how to join the dots from the m.c. for George WOOD back to the William John Robert MAPLES mentioned in the opening post, but I have not found a likely UK marriage for a Robert MAPLES and a lass surnamed WOOD. 

As I understand it, the civil registration process in the UK commenced in 1837, and at that time it was the responsibility of the registrar (or deputy) to go to the newborn's household to gather the details to be registered, so the onus was not on either parent to actively seek out the registrar.   If that is so, then it is entirely possible that an English birth registration of the Robert MAPLES mentioned on George's birth certificate many not have ever been accomplished.   I understand the English civil birth registration system was overhauled by around 1875, but that SURNAMES for baby do not commence on GRO certificates until the 1960s.     

JM

[majm]

The June quarter 1859 birth registration for George is indexed under both MAPLES and WOOD at freebmd. 

http://www.freebmd.org.uk/

JM

[spades]

Hi Graham9510,

I have moved your topic to this board as Weardley is located in the West Riding.

If you think it should be elsewhere, don't hesitate to use the R2M button again to suggest a change and a Moderator will tweak things.

Spades

[venelow]

Hi Graham

Looking at your problem here are some thoughts:

The father's name appears on the entry of birth this means he was present when the birth was registered on June 24th and was consenting to acknowledge the child. This could mean that he was going to marry the mother Elizabeth Wood. We know for sure that Elizabeth was under age so they were supposed to get consent. Possibly consent was denied for some reason. Or they were going to get married at a future date but this did not happen. Cold feet? He may have died but I can't find a death or he may have absconded to foreign parts. (This might be anywhere including Scotland)

There is a record of a Robert Maples b. England becoming naturalized in the USA in 1880 but I cannot find him in the 1880 census. The 1890 census is missing so he could have died before 1900.
He is a possibility but I have not found him on a passenger list either.

Like majm I am also wondering about connecting the information on the marriage record to William John Robert Maples.  Surprisingly WJR was also illegitimate. He was not Registered in the civil system but he was baptized at Harewood on April 26th 1846. I have never seen a father's name attached to a record of baptism if the parents were not married. I though the C of E was pretty hard line about illegitimacy.
Maybe things were changing by 1846 but it probably means the father was at the baptism and did not object to being named as William Maples a Farmer of Weardley.  The mother was Elizabeth Dickenson.  I have not found a marriage in England or Wales between William and Elizabeth.

When it comes to the 1851 Census young William (John Robert) appears to be in a household with younger sisters Elizabeth and Mary Jane. Elizabeth Dickenson appears to have married a William Dickenson who is 60 years old (she is 33) but there is no marriage in England or Wales. Maybe WD gave her a home without marrying her. Or the enumerator was confused and William is actually her father. So it looks as if William was now firmly a Dickenson and not a Maples.  I have not found baptisms for the two younger children.  And just as Robert vanishes after George Wood's birth William Maples is not in the 1851 census.

So Robert Maples may be a different person to William John Robert Maples/Dickenson.

The Robert Maples who died in the Settle District in 1901 was born at Newington Middx.  in 1836 to a family of stone carvers and sculptors. His father was Cornelius Maples. In 1841 the family was in Birmingham and in 1851 they were in Hampstead so it looks like they moved about a bit.

In 1860 a Robert Maples aged 24 is found living with Jarvis Maples a Stone Cutter and his family in Richmond, South Carolina. One of Jervis' sons is called Cornelius aged 25 a stone carver and there is a daughter called Matilda who is the same age as Robert. So unless Robert and Matilda are twins I think Jarvis may be Robert's uncle and since the timing is about right for someone bunking off to America after getting a girl into trouble this Robert is a serious candidate.

It would probably be a good idea to contact the Harewood Estate Archives and see if the stone carving Maples family were doing any work for Lord Harewood round about 1858 - 9.

Venelow
Canada

[Jomot]

The father's name appears on the entry of birth this means he was present when the birth was registered on June 24th and was consenting to acknowledge the child.

This is not entirely correct - it only became compulsory for the father to be present from 1875.