Illegitimate child

[chanel]

Hello,

I have a question - is there a protocol for placing an illegitimate child's name in a family tree when the biological father's name is known? Should it be his tree.......or...?

I should know this but I'm afraid I don't.

Chanel

[SmallTownGirl]

Do you mean in terms of (a) simply how should the information be shown or (b) whether the information should be shown at all in case it offends [some] people?

If the former, then if Jane Smith has an illegitimate child called John, he goes on the tree as John Smith and the father's name is left blank/empty.

If the latter, then it's your call because it depends on who else has access to your tree and how sensitive (i.e. recent/within living memory etc) the information is.

Or have I not got the right end of the stick about what you were asking?

STG

[IgorStrav]

Do you mean in terms of (a) simply how should the information be shown or (b) whether the information should be shown at all in case it offends [some] people?

If the former, then if Jane Smith has an illegitimate child called John, he goes on the tree as John Smith and the father's name is left blank/empty.

If the latter, then it's your call because it depends on who else has access to your tree and how sensitive (i.e. recent/within living memory etc) the information is.

Or have I not got the right end of the stick about what you were asking?

STG

And if you know the father's name, you could add this as another partner for Jane Smith with a note that they did not marry.

But as STG says, it depends on the background to your question.

[Plummiegirl]

As I have discovered one branch of my family seems to be made up almost entirely of illigitemate children.  One branch 3 adults and 9 children and by the time all the marriages and children have been entered most of the children are totally unrelated except by marriage.

As such I have now a policy for my own tree, I only add children to the mother, married or otherwise.

 

[barryd]

I have a complicated situation involving an illegitimate son which I have solved for the records by giving the father of the illegitimate child two “marriages”, one for the birth of his illegitimate child and the other for his legal marriage to another woman. In the box for the first “marriage” date/place I have inserted “Never Married”. To complicate matters the father himself was born illegitimate prior to the marriage of his parents. So he I have named   “Herbert Claxton Irwin or Herbert Irwin Claxton” his birth name and later name when his was legitimized. His illegitimate child with Sarah Baskerville was named Harry Erwin Baskerville. Herbert Irwin Claxton’s legal wife was Mary Ann Rudd whom he married 13 January 1883, Thetford, Norfolk. 

Fortunately all parties seemed to have wanted to leave a trail of names that could be tied up together.

[chanel]

Thank you all for your replies - it seems that there can be some very complex situations in families where illegitimate children are involved. It seems , too, that family tree construction is a very individual affair, rather than a cut and dried business.

But let me ask this. Suppose Miss X has an illegitimate child by Mr Y, and the child is given the surname of his/her mother, X. Regardless of what may happen next (eg the mother may go on to marry Mr Z and give the child the surname Z, etc, etc), shouldn't the child's name appear in the family trees of both Miss X and Mr Y, just as a matter of birthright? How it's done doesn't matter much- it's up to the individual tree-makers.

Chanel

[Marie Davies]

I agree it's a matter of birthright. The child has a mother and father and they should be recorded. Just fact. For me this is the right thing to do. Because it's the truth.

I would do as you have done and just add another spouse and write "Never Married."

Going into the future, with many people just having a "partner" and not getting married I imagine in the future "spouse" will have to be changed to "partner" in family trees.
 

[majm]

    Hi there,

Many decades ago it was explained to me that from a family history perspective the baby's surname is the same as their Mum's surname ....     

So in the case of a married woman, from around the time that civil registration commences (it varies from country/colony/state) until around 1960s the baby's surname is usually the same as their Mum's husband, as Mum has likely become known by that surname as a result of her marriage.     BUT the civil registration papers may in fact, NOT expressly define the baby's surname, and simply record the baby's given names, date of birth.  Most of the document expressly gives information about the baby's parent/s.   



Cheers,  JM

 

[Marie Davies]

When searching for a relative one day I came across a person who had put something like...

We are fairly sure that Mr X is the father of Miss Y due to blah blah.

Someone then came along and commented that Mr X is absolutely not the father of Miss Y and please take him off your tree immediately.

I guess this is where it get's tricky and some people will get upset. From what I could see neither person really had any concrete proof. If it's not on a birth certificate, I think you can put on your tree what you have been told, just add a disclaimer that that this is what you have been told. People are within their rights to comment that they disagree but i don't think it should be taken down.