Re: Hannah Hoskins b1688-Beaminster, Dorset

[billbir]

I would like some advice on how to deal with the subject on my Family tree. Hannah Hoskins, is described in FamilySearch as born to mother, Hester Daniel and described as illegitimate. This is extremely frustrating, as I have the marriage of Hester Daniel to Henry Hoskins, and his line, going back to 1581. However, discovering that Hannah, was illegitimate, throws doubt on that lineage. What is surprising, is that Hannah, was no. 5 of the 7 children, that Henry and Hester had. I know that these things can happen, but it does seem unusual, in what was probably a very small village, in those days, that someone, would have an affair, having already had 4 children, with her husband and then proceed to have another 2 with him, after the affair!

Presumably, all the Hoskins and their wives and family, should be removed, prior to Hannah, as her father is unknown?

Any input, would be greatly appreciated.

[..claire..]

Hi,

Although it is member submitted  on the older version of familysearch the bp. of Hanna Hoskins 25 Dec. 1688 Beaminster lists both parents Henry Hoskins and Hester Daniel.

claire

[Ruskie]

Without knowing the dates of marriage and births of children, this just sounds like Henry and Hester had children without geting married first. I have read that this did happen intentionally to prove that the couple were able to produce children before formally marrying.

If Hannah was baptised Hannah Hoskins and her father was Henry Hoskins and mother was Hester Daniels, then that's as much proof of parentage as any of us have. 

I may be incorrect here as I don't know dates of marriage and births of children born to the couple, but I don't understand why you assume that Hester had an affair.

[billbir]

Hi Claire and Ruskie,

Thank you for your replies. I do apologise, as I clearly have not given you sufficient information, to answer my thread. I should have told you that, according to Family Search, the mother of the subject was Hester Daniel, who was married to Henry Hoskins on 2 February 1673, at Beaminster Dorset. Henry, was an inn holder. They had 7 children between 1679 and 1690, hence my assumption about there being an 'affair'. For Hannah, to be described as illegitimate, when Henry and Hester, had been married for 15 years and had already had 4 children and subsequently, had 2 more after Hannah, is I think 'odd'. Obviously, it would be easier for me, if Hannah, was not illegitimate, as I can follow the Hoskins, back to the late 1500's, but being illegitimate, throws doubt on the lineage. Hence my query.

Please let me know, if you require any clarification.

One other point is, is there any way of finding out the size in population or otherwise, of Beaminster, in the late 1600's?

Bill

Without knowing the dates of marriage and births of children, this just sounds like Henry and Hester had children without geting married first. I have read that this did happen intentionally to prove that the couple were able to produce children before formally marrying.

If Hannah was baptised Hannah Hoskins and her father was Henry Hoskins and mother was Hester Daniels, then that's as much proof of parentage as any of us have. 

I may be incorrect here as I don't know dates of marriage and births of children born to the couple, but I don't understand why you assume that Hester had an affair.

[Ruskie]

Ah, I think I understand now Bill. 

Have you seen the actual parish register of Hannah's birth/baptism? They can be very 'direct' in their descriptions of illegimate children. I don't know how likely it would be that Henry would be named as the father if he was not. I know in later centuries the husband is always perceived to be the father of the child if a couple is married, but I'm not sure about this era.

I'm also wondering if it's possible that the curate mistakenly wrote that Hannah was illegitimate? 

Have you seen the PR's of the other children's birth/baptisms? What is the wording for these?

According to this:
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/genuki/DOR/Beaminster/index.html
in 1821 there were 2806 inhabitants in Beaminster though that doesn't help with the population in the late 1600's.

[billbir]

Hi Ruskie,

All my info. came from Family Search but I have looked at http://www.opcdorset.org/. Unfortunately, there are some missing years, which cover Hannah and some of the other children. I have managed to check a few, and they all say son/daughter of Henry Hoskins. Is there any other source for the parish register. I live in High Wycombe, so Dorset would be a special trip.

I find it hard to believe that the curate would write that Hannah, was illegitimate, by mistake. He would have been an educated man, who would have been aware of the consequences of making such a mistake.

The population details, you provided, were interesting, as if there was only 2806 inhabitants in 1821, it is likely that there would be considerably fewer, in the 1600's. So this would be a very small place, in which to have any marital indiscretions, without being noticed.

Thank you for taking an interest in my problem.

Bill

[Ruskie]

So am I right in thinking that you have not viewed the actual Parish Register entry of Hannah's birth/baptism and have relied on transcripts? If some years are missing including Hannah's, how is it that you know what the PR says?

Have you checked the FamilySearch site to see if they hold the film for Beaminster in this time frame? I'm afraid I don't know of any other sources for PR's. Maybe the local family history society?

I have heard of lots of instances of curates mishearing, misinterpreting, or just being careless to record certain entries, writing details on pieces of paper rather than directly into the register etc., then adding many entries all at the same time - so mistakes are bound to have happened. Maybe the entry above or below Hannah was the illegitimate child ....    Pure speculation of course but all of your doubt stems from that single word 'illegitimate' even though the father is named. It does all seem a bit odd, so I do wonder about it's accuracy.

[billbir]

So am I right in thinking that you have not viewed the actual Parish Register entry of Hannah's birth/baptism and have relied on transcripts? If some years are missing including Hannah's, how is it that you know what the PR says?

Have you checked the FamilySearch site to see if they hold the film for Beaminster in this time frame? I'm afraid I don't know of any other sources for PR's. Maybe the local family history society?

I have heard of lots of instances of curates mishearing, misinterpreting, or just being careless to record certain entries, writing details on pieces of paper rather than directly into the register etc., then adding many entries all at the same time - so mistakes are bound to have happened. Maybe the entry above or below Hannah was the illegitimate child ....    Pure speculation of course but all of your doubt stems from that single word 'illegitimate' even though the father is named. It does all seem a bit odd, so I do wonder about it's accuracy.

Ruskie

I have contacted the Dorset Archives and spoken to a very helpful lady, who viewed the records, while I was on the phone. She came back to me, saying that the records clearly stated that Hannah, was a 'Bastard'. She said that occasionally, these things happened and it may not have been the Wife's fault. If the husband was understanding, and he seems to be in this case, then the child would be given the family name. It was said that in some instances, a 'Bastardy Bond' could be sought to obtain some support from the father. I have emailed Dorset Archives, to see if one exists. I will let you know what happens.

Bill

[Ruskie]

If Hannah was noted as a 'bastard' in the PR's then that makes all the difference.  I think looking for a bastardy bond is the best next step. Let us know the outcome.

It would also be interesting to know if any of the other children also had a different father.