Finding information on an illegitimate child in Lincolnshire? - Thomas Beacock

[Ruskie]

Thomas naming Gilbert as his father on his marriage certificate could be due to the question asked of him rather than any shame or an attempt to hide his illegitimacy. He may have been asked "what is your Father's name?" He considered Gilbert to be his father so he said "Gilbert", and the vicar mistakenly assumed Gilbert's surname was Beacock.

Moving to Hull may simply have been because that's where he could find work at that time.

I suppose, sadly, you will never know. 

[rosie99]

His place of birth on census was Barnetby le Wold where he was living in 1841.  This would come under Glanford Brigg RD. 
It does not look as though his birth was registered.  I have just looked for birth registrations for a Thomas ... in March & June qtrs 1841 using those listed on freebmd against the GRO index where I gave mmn Beacock.  I could not see any possible registrations though you could always try this yourself in case I have missed something. 

Have you tried searching parish registers for Barnetby le wold for a baptism 

[Annette7]

Original parish records for Barnetby le Wold are on FindMyPast - you have to browse through the pages.   However, searched through from 1840 to 1845 and Thomas Beacock was definitely not baptised there.

Annette

[Dundee]

I have just looked for birth registrations for a Thomas ... in March & June qtrs 1841 using those listed on freebmd against the GRO index where I gave mmn Beacock.  I could not see any possible registrations though you could always try this yourself in case I have missed something. 

Me too 

The only one that may be worth following up is this one:

LOVITT, Thomas Lovitt
No mother's maiden name
GRO Reference: 1841  M Quarter in THE GLANFORD BRIGG UNION  Volume 14  Page 366

This is the only (probably) illegitimate birth of a Thomas in that quarter in the reg. district.  It is odd because usually you will see the child's name from the first column, in this case Thomas Lovitt, and the surname indexed is the mother's surname.  If her name was LOVITT then you would think she would name the child Thomas Smith or Thomas Jones or whatever the father's surname was.  I can't see this child on a census and I don't see a death.

Debra 

[Geoff-E]

The only one that may be worth following up is this one:

LOVITT, Thomas Lovitt
No mother's maiden name
GRO Reference: 1841  M Quarter in THE GLANFORD BRIGG UNION  Volume 14  Page 366

This is the only (probably) illegitimate birth of a Thomas in that quarter in the reg. district.  It is odd because usually you will see the child's name from the first column, in this case Thomas Lovitt, and the surname indexed is the mother's surname.  If her name was LOVITT then you would think she would name the child Thomas Smith or Thomas Jones or whatever the father's surname was.  I can't see this child on a census and I don't see a death.

There was a LOVITT/LOVITT marriage Q4 1837 (Gell to Mary Anne) ... but the child isn't there in 1841 or 1851.

There was actually a baptism and burial for Thomas Aug & Oct 1840.

(See FreeREG)

EDIT: The 1840 Thomas appears on FreeBMD. I'm at a loss to explain the 1841 Thomas LOVITT.  Anyway, he's not relevant to the BEACOCK problem. 

[Anthony Beacock]

Hi everyone,

I am so sorry for not replying to you all. I haven't been able to log into the RootsChat for some strange reason, but my account is thankfully back up and running as normal. Again I am so sorry.

@Milliepede - As far as I know, I don't think she did have any other children to the same man who fathered Thomas, but who knows!

@Ruskie - Yes, I have thought about that theory of the "What is your father's name?" question before. And also about the moving to Hull, in order to find work.

@rosie99 - Yes, I tried this and I couldn't find anything either! I did the same thing of searching for every child born in Glanford Brigg at that time. I went through them and narrowed them down a Thomas Lovitt Lovitt born in March 1841. I look on GRO and searched for births. That lead me to see that there was no mother's maiden name. I'm not sure if this could be him or not really.

@Annette7 -  I don't have access to FindMyPast unfortunately so I cannot view the images. Thanks for having a look for me, I appreciate it. In the above paragraph, I said that I have possibly narrowed him down to Thomas Lovitt Lovitt.

@Dundee - Yes, this is what I have found too! I was wondering too if his name was Thomas Lovitt Lovitt, or his name was Thomas Lovitt and his mother's maiden name was Lovitt. The father's surname could have been Lovitt, but then surely Sarah Beacock would have put Beacock down as the mother maiden name? It all confuses me so much!! I can't see him in the census records either.

@Geoff-E - Yes, It is so strange. I am so confused by it all and have been for a while. I need to at least prove the "Thomas Lovitt Lovitt" theory!

[Eilleen]

Stamford Mercury 17 April 1863  note middle name xx

Gilbert Burton Handson, of Winteringham, butcher and farmer , the bankrupt is very deaf, and had the assistance of an interpreter in his examination, Thomas Lovett Beacock, son in law of the bankrupt, made a claim upon the estate for services rendered in excess of 1s per week which he had recieved, the claim was referred to the judge, liabilities ? assets doubtful.

[Anthony Beacock]

Wow, I really cannot believe that you have found that. I am sending you a private message.
I am so grateful Eilleen.

[brigidmac]

Parish records may have a payment order to Sarah from the birth father if she took him to court.

You.d have to look for bastardy order
Or affiliation order

have you looked at any likely neighbours or employers with the first name Thomas
If a woman named child after putative father she was more likely to get payments

Often women named their sons after their own father's in gratitude for being taken back into the fold