Parentage problems!

[itsrobert]

Re: Ellen, she married while pregnant when she was 29 years old. After that, I’m not sure except that she stayed in the same area and died in the 1950s.

Re: the documents with Amelia’s name on, all the usual ones like birth, marriage and death certificates, parish registers, censuses, electoral rolls. I never ever saw her give any other forename than Amelia.

[Milliepede]

The baptism entry is the correct one - his date of birth is consistent with his birth certificate (5th August) - and the godmother is Mary Jane who is Amelia's twin sister.

Twin sister.  Do you know what happened to Mary Jane?  Is it possible she was the mother and the baptism was a bit of a ruse

[itsrobert]

Mary Jane and Amelia were twin sisters, Ellen was younger. Mary Jane married, had children and stayed in the same locality too. In fact in one census all of them are living together with their parents, husbands etc! I guess it could well be possible that John was Mary Jane’s son, although there is absolutely nothing on paper to suggest that. Only that his mother was either Amelia or Ellen.

Thinking about the godmother on John’s baptism record, it could actually be his grandmother who was also Mary Jane.

It’s a pretty good puzzle. Obviously a very close knit family and the only thing I am certain about is that John was illegitimate! But whose son he actually was, I’ve absolutely no idea!

[Milliepede]

It is intriguing.  If Ellen was the mother being so young Amelia may have been protecting her by putting herself as the mother on the birth - did Amelia register the birth as well by the way?

But if that were the case I don't know why she wouldn't have shown herself as the mother on the baptism as well - unless Ellen insisted it be her. 

I'm sure we all would prefer to think someone that young wasn't the mother but have to accept it is possible. 

[Milliepede]

I take it on census as a child John is described as "son" not adopted son or nephew or anything else out of the ordinary?

[itsrobert]

Yes Amelia registered the birth herself on 16th September. I’ve got both the GRO version and the actual copy from the local register office. It’s got Amelia’s own handwritten signature on it!

Well on his first census, John is listed as grandson because he falls under his grandparents in their family unit. Ellen and Mary Jane (who is married at this point) are also listed, as is Mary Jane’s first child and a cousin who is also living with them. Amelia and her husband are listed together with their two legitimate children as a separate family unit within the same house. It’s like a house full of waifs and strays!

By the time of the next census, Amelia’s clan have moved elsewhere. She is living with her husband and all her children, including John. He is listed underneath the parents as the first and eldest child and the only indication that he is different is that he retains the mother’s maiden name as well as her married name. So he effectively has two surnames. Interestingly, when John had his own children later on (he had to get married too, oh dear!) he signed the certificates using both surnames. So he was clearly aware he had a different name to the rest of his “siblings”. However by the time he died in the 1960s, he had dropped his mother’s maiden name. Certainly no one in the family has ever mentioned anything about John’s family. These are from my own and my dad’s recollections of talking to my grandad as well as my dad’s cousin who is still alive. None of us have been told anything about John’s family. Everything was about his wife’s family!

I don’t know and can’t prove anything, but I just sense something a bit strange. Taking it all into account. It’s such a pity my grandad, nor his brother, is no longer alive to put this to.

[Milliepede]

Ah one more question then does the number of children born add up?
I know strictly the number was supposed to be those born to the marriage and John was born prior but how many does Amelia say she has? 

Wondering why Amelia wouldn’t be the Godmother on the baptism 

Was twin Mary Jane married before the baptism of John? 

[itsrobert]

Well, looking at the 1911 census, Ellen is unmarried and living with her mother and cousin. It doesn't indicate that she had had any children on the census.

In terms of Amelia, the 1911 census states that she had 9 children, 1 of whom had died. This is accurate and the total would include John.

Mary Jane (Amelia's twin) was not married when John was born - but their mother was also Mary Jane. As they would both have shared the same surname when John was born, I cannot tell now if the godmother is Mary Jane senior or Mary Jane junior. No godfather is listed on the register.

I'm currently doing a bit of research into Ellen to see what became of her. She married in 1914 and gave birth to a son, Charles three months later. Her husband died at sea the very next month. She then appears to have had another son born in 1917 - I'm going to request the birth certificate to see what it says. I'm certain it's her because the 1917 baby died in 1918 and the address is consistent with where her sister Mary Jane was living then. So, clearly Ellen was living with her sister, having been widowed. She never remarried and died in the 1950s. On the 1939 census she is still alone, lodging with others it seems. Her occupation is a sack mender, so not very lucrative money-wise one would assume. If she is John's father, maybe the tough time she had explains why she never came forward to claim him as her own? I.e. she wouldn't have been able to support him?

Gosh, it's a very confusing picture. I'm going to request a few certificates relating to Ellen's life to see if I can flesh things out a bit. I don't imagine it will help me unravel the mystery of John's baptism entry!! It would be a lot easier if I could just accept that the priest entered Ellen instead of Amelia by mistake!!

[[Ray]]

Hi     

You posted " - I assumed that Amelia had had John with the man she married but as they weren't legally married at the time of his birth, his father's name couldn't be entered onto the birth certificate."     

Certainly both names can be entered on the registration/cert if the father was present ( and signed ), married or not, generating 2 indices pointing to the same registration.     
It has been the subject of a recent thread on RootsChat and GRO have confirmed to me by email.       


What I do not know is     
     
1) How long that situation has been allowable.   

2) What the dates in this case really are   

3) Why you do not just tell us the detail?