Case of the unknown father - Andrew Burt/Beadle

[burtgra]

Andrew Burt was born 12 Feb 1845 in Lambeth, Surrey, England.  His birth certificate, issued 24 March 1845, does not have a father listed and has his mother listed as Hannah Burt.  I have been told the fact that his father's name was left blank usually means it was an illegitimate birth.
Andrew's marriage certificate, issued 13 July 1867, lists Andrew's father as William Burt, a potter.

If William Burt is Andrew's real father, why would he be listed on Andrew's marriage certificate and not his birth.  If William Burt isn't Andrew's real father, would he have been put on Andrew's marriage certificate.  It is also strange that Andrew's surname is Burt, and his mother, Hannah, also has the surname Burt.  Hannah Burt later married a Daniel Beadle in 1849, in which Andrew lived with until he was married to Esther Hodgkins (note if William Burt is Andrew's real father, he is still alive after Hannah married Daniel).  After Andrew's marriage, the surname of his family is listed as Burt on one record (census, birth, immigration), and as Beadle on another.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Graham Burt

[avm228]

Hello Graham and welcome

It is extremely common to find that a person born illegitimately invented details of a father on his or her wedding day in order to avoid having to admit to the illegitimacy.

The invented father generally is given the same surname as the person getting married, for obvious respectability purposes.  His first name and occupation might be picked randomly or might be drawn from real people - a grandfather, a stepfather, an uncle, or even the natural father if some details are known of him.

Beware of concluding (if you have) that if it doesn't say deceased on the marriage certificate then he must be alive at the date of the marriage - that doesn't follow.

Have you found Andrew in the 1841 census?

[burtgra]

Thanks for your reply!  I have not heard of them making up names on records before, but that makes sense.

Andrew was born in 1845, so he wouldn't be on the 1841 census.  I have found him on all other census' except for 1851.

[avm228]

Hannah's marriage to Daniel does show that she was a spinster.

Marriage, St Mary Newington

29 January 1849

Daniel BEADLE  Full age Bachelor Fisherman of Fore St. Father: John BEADLE, deceased.

Hannah BURT Full age Spinster of Saunders St.  Father: Robert BURT, waterman.

After banns.

Bride and groom made their mark.

Witnesses: William BEADLE (made his mark); Elizabeth BURGESS (signed).

[avm228]

Thanks for your reply!  I have not heard of them making up names on records before, but that makes sense.

Andrew was born in 1845, so he wouldn't be on the 1841 census.  I have found him on all other census' except for 1851.

Sorry - I meant 1851.  It's been a long day

[burtgra]

I understand  .  So what does that mean?  Doesn't a spinster mean an childless, older unmarried woman?

[avm228]

I understand  .  So what does that mean?  Doesn't a spinster mean an childless, older unmarried woman?

It just means an unmarried woman.  So whoever Andrew's father was, she had not been married to him.

[burtgra]

So basically, there is no way of finding out Andrew's real father?

[avm228]

Generally in these circumstances one does not find a provable father.  Ironically, perhaps, it can be easier in the 18th/early 19th centuries (pre-1834) when parishes were responsible for maintaining destitute illegitimate children and thus were more likely to probe and document the identity of the reputed father so as to get him to maintain the child.

Sometimes one can have a hunch from census records about who the father may have been - e.g. if there is an unattached adult male in the same household as the mother, or a man found in the neighbourhood with the right name and occupation.  Sometimes the mother gave a heavy hint as to his identity by including the natural father's first name and/or surname among the baby's given names at baptism and/or registration.

Was "William Burt" definitely said to be a potter, or might he have been the (more common) porter?

If a potter that has the ring of possibly having a germ of truth in it - it would be an odd thing to make up.