Iillegitimate birth ?

[hasta]

I have an Irish baptism record from 1878. The child is named William but no surname, no father named, and the only sponsor is the mother, who uses her married name rather that maiden name.
The civil record is the same. 'Surname and Dwelling Place of Father' is blank as is 'Rank or Profession of Father'. The place of birth and informants address are the same, and she is not a family member.

So obviously the birth seems to be illegitimate, yet I know for sure that the mother is married and this is her fourth child and her husband didn't die until 5 years later in 1883. They are buried in the same grave which slightly makes me think they weren't separated or estranged ??

Anyone know of any other possible reason that the fathers name would be left off other than illegitimacy ?

Also, presuming the child's father is not her husband, is there any significance to leaving the fathers details blank rather than just naming whoever he really is, or making something up or  just naming her husband 'on the sly' ??
Did a father have to be present at a baptism or something like that.

[aghadowey]

What was the father's occupation? was it one that meant he spent time away from home?
Or did the mother give birth away from her usual abode?
The birth certificate should list the child's first name(s) but not surname which sounds like what you found on the certificate.
It could be that the informant didn't know the father's details when registering the birth or that she was confused when giving the details to the registrar.
You haven't mentioned what church the baptism took place in but the father, or mother, doesn't have to be present. I know of a few baptisms where the grandparents brought a child for baptism.

[Elwyn Soutter]

Did a father have to be present at a baptism or something like that.

As I understand it, with a married woman, there’s a presumption of legitimacy so she can put her husband down as the father without his presence or agreement. With an unmarried woman, the father has to be present and acknowledge paternity (otherwise the mother might name anyone, creating obvious awkward difficulties later).

[hasta]

The husband was a Labourer, so he could well be away working.

I could understand if the civil record was blank if the informant hadn't got the correct information but the fact that  the baptism record is the same, no mention of him and she is also the only named sponsor, so she seems to be baptising the child entirely alone. (both grand mothers have different christian names so it's not them)

The parish is Booterstown in Rathdown and she married in the same church as have all of the rest of the family and all of their children's baptisms have happened there also, so she would have been well known to the priest I imagine.

Also possibly significant is that she uses her married name at the baptism rather than her maiden name (giving the child the same surname as his siblings)

So even if husband is away, she has the right to 'presumption of legitimacy' as a married woman to name him, but for some reason she chooses not to ?
 
Without casting aspersions on the lady (after all she is my g.g grandmother!) I believe her first birth predates her marriage by 18 months and she is 4 months pregnant with the second when she marries. So just wanted to see if there might be an innocent explanation for this one !!!

[taramcdsmall]

Re her first child predating her marriage

I know you have said that her husband was a labourer in later years but is it possible that her husband was in the RIC at this earlier stage ?

I have been told that couples would get married by the RIC chaplain first. About a year or so later they could then get married civilly. Seemingly this was for pension reasons. How true this is, I don't know but I have come across it a number of times. Unfortunately it does make the first born of these couples appear to be 'illegitimate' when in fact they weren't.

Re her 4th child

The fact that the couple were both in the same grave could have been for financial reasons and would not guarantee that they were still a couple. I would very much doubt she was divorced, so I presume she would have had to use her marriage name regardless of who the father was. It's possible that this 4th child did have the same father as his siblings but that he was absent from their lives just before the birth and baptism and she just didn't want to put his name on the documents.

Just a few theories, but you may never know

Tara

[Sinann]

I don't know how much the law has changed over the years, but today a married woman's children 'belong' to her husband unless he goes to court and swears they are not. This happened to a friend of mine, she couldn't put her new partner's name on their child's birth cert until her husband agreed to go the court and swear the child wasn't his. They were legally separated but not divorced when the child was born.

If things were the same back then perhaps she couldn't put the child's father down and just refused to put her husband's name.