Illegitimacy - how have you handled it on your Family Tree?

[chris_49]

I use "Unknown Father" which my avatar tells you is the commonest person in my tree - over 50. In fact there are more than that because I also use "Unknown fathers" where the spread of illegitimate births means they cannot be all from the same father (such as the six my great great grandmother had between 1848 and 1867).

GR used to insist that you added both parents for each child so I had to use some moniker. Later they allowed mother only so such children can be shown as "immaculate conceptions" which is fine if the mother has no other child but can be confusing if you show one child coming down directly from the mother and others attached to the man she marries.

That's not the full total of illegitimacies because there are others where I'm pretty sure who the father is - his surname given as child's middle name for instance - or where the couple lived as man and wife but no marriage found. In this case I put "not married" in the "place of marriage" box so it survives in the gedcom when I export to Ancestry (or "marriage not found" where the record might not have survived, as before 1837).

Not needing to name a father means you can omit the mother too - seen in those trees that go back to the middle ages where the wife was not important enough to make recorded history. But one relative of mine has used this feature to expunge his ex-wife from his tree - making it look like he produced their children all by himself!

[Redroger]

 I have2 such ancestors 3great and 2great grandmother respectively.To distinguish I use the putative father's surname when I know it, and use the Latin filius(is) populi son (daughter) of the people when I don't.

[Maiden Stone]

I have2 such ancestors 3great and 2great grandmother respectively.To distinguish I use the putative father's surname when I know it, and use the Latin filius(is) populi son (daughter) of the people when I don't.

  I like son/daughter of the people. I've got a few of them in 19thC. I also like the terms "natural son/daughter" and "lovechild". If they were Scottish they would have been "born of fornication".

[Maiden Stone]

Not needing to name a father means you can omit the mother too - seen in those trees that go back to the middle ages where the wife was not important enough to make recorded history. But one relative of mine has used this feature to expunge his ex-wife from his tree - making it look like he produced their children all by himself!

A person seeing it might suppose they were born of a surrogate mother.
It's like those historians who used only the facts which suited their point of view.

[TimeSearcher2020]

Still, on the topic of illegitimacy when proven by way of a Y-DNA test, there are several unanswered questions of great importance:

Take the case of a child born to a married woman where the biological father is not the woman's husband, and the woman keeps this a secret. When this "mis-attributed paternal event" is finally discovered via DNA (as it will be more and more in the future), the question still remains: How would you list the biological father on the family tree? Clearly, 50% of the child's genes are from the biological father (while 0% are from the woman's husband).

In addition, the child will carry the legal last name of the husband (not the biological father) throughout his/her life. How would you then list the husband in relation to the child (given the husband is listed on the birth certificate, not the biological father)?

Also, do DNA tests override documentation? How can they not? Family history is one thing, but genealogy is inherently about one's "genes". Is this where "family history" diverges from ancestry? As more and more people in more and more counties take DNA tests, and as databases grow larger and technology more advanced, consider this: Ten years from now how many "genealogies" will be "proven" to be inaccurate? Will this not result in years of "genealogical" conclusions being thrown into question.

Are any of us prepared for what we might find - all those family secrets that were never meant to be found out? What will be the process for confronting parents/grandparents, and newly found parents/grandparents, by the children that lived their lives believing dad was dad, only to find out that he wasn't?

And lastly, how will we cite sources for DNA matches (many that may be still alive) that have provided the evidence needed to prove mis-attributed paternal events? Where does the genealogical proof standard end and confidentiality ethics supersede?

 

[JohninSussex]

Also, do DNA tests override documentation? How can they not? Family history is one thing, but genealogy is inherently about one's "genes". Is this where "family history" diverges from ancestry?

I don't agree with most of what you have written, but the above fragment is at the core of it.  We have become used to using the posh-sounding, or scientific-sounding, word "genealogy".  It comes from the same root as "genes", "genetic" etc.  And we use the term "Family History".  So perhaps in due course we will start using thse two terms to mean two different things.

If your ancestry, as defined by the documentation, turns out to differ from your ancestry, as defined by genetic tests, it's not the case that one is right and the other wrong.  Your gggrandfather and his wife your gggrandmother brought up your ggrandfather and his siblings, they were part of your family history.  They may or may not have known that gggf wasn't the man who contributed genetic material to the children, very often it was probably known at the time.  If they were content to accept the family relationships, no reason why we shouldn't do the same 100 or more years later. 

[Maiden Stone]

According to English law a child born during a marriage was the child of the husband unless either spouse disputed it. Such children were under their father's control until they were 21 or married. Until late 19thC, if husband and wife split up, the husband retained custody of children of the marriage.

[Redroger]

  I like son/daughter of the people. I've got a few of them in 19thC. I also like the terms "natural son/daughter" and "lovechild". If they were Scottish they would have been "born of fornication".

My great grandfather was "dismembered" by the Baptist church for fornication and drunkeness. They obviously did a good repair job, because a few years later  he was dismembered again. As he was now married this time it was for drunkeness only.

[Maiden Stone]

  I like son/daughter of the people. I've got a few of them in 19thC. I also like the terms "natural son/daughter" and "lovechild". If they were Scottish they would have been "born of fornication".

My great grandfather was "dismembered" by the Baptist church for fornication and drunkeness. They obviously did a good repair job, because a few years later  he was dismembered again. As he was now married this time it was for drunkeness only.

Ouch! Far worse than being stood on the naughty stool to be admonished in front of the congregation. Just as well he was put back together again, otherwise you might not have existed.