At what point does it become apparent that an ancestor had been illegitimate?

[Honor]

There are several male ancestors that I cannot even find a birth record for, no matter how hard I search. My great great grandfather John Thomas Horton was born around 1862 in Brixham and I always wondered why there doesn't seem to a record of his birth. My grandmother recently confided that she thinks he was illegitimate, going by things she overheard her mother and aunt talking to each other about when she was young. It all made sense when she said that.

When do you realise that you're probably dealing with an illegitimacy?

[Jomot]

When do you realise that you're probably dealing with an illegitimacy?

For me its usually when I cant find a birth or baptism - particularly where the age of the child on the census appears to pre-date, or be extremely close to, the marriage. 

Have you looked for a birth registered under his mother's maiden name?

[nanny jan]

His birth might not have been registered. Can you find him on 1871 census?


Nanny Jan

[coombs]

Birth registration was not compulsory until 1875, from 1837 to 1874 the registrar toured the district getting notes on new births and even in rural areas, some were missed, or even if they were registered, some may have not made it to the GRO index. Have you tried the local RO for John Thomas Horton's birth? Have you got his mum's maiden name, such as her marriage cert?

[stanmapstone]

Birth registration was not compulsory until 1875,

Birth Registration compulsion
Under the 1836 Registration Act, Section XVIII, registration was compulsory in the case of the Registrar. The onus was on him to collect births and deaths. In carrying out his duties the parents were compelled, under the Act, Section XX, to supply the information when asked. The Act states the parent or occupier 'shall' give information to the Registrar on a birth 'upon being requested to do so.' In official documents 'shall' means compulsion. The reason why it is thought that registration was not compulsory is that in Section XIX the act states that the “Father or Mother of any Child ........ may*, within forty-two Days next after the Day of such Birth or within Five Days after the Day of such Death respectively, give Notice of such Birth or Death to the Registrar of the District;" In this context may means to have the opportunity, or be permitted by circumstances not to wait for the registrar, but to go to him to register the birth, or death, not the option to register the birth or not. If the birth was not registered within forty-two days there was also a fee of two Shillings and Sixpence entitlement for the Superintendent Registrar, and five shillings for the registrar, Section XXII. The registrar was also paid for every entry of birth and deaths, Section XXIX, two shillings and sixpence each for the first twenty entries, and one shilling for every subsequent entry of Births or Deaths in each Year. This gave him the incentive to make sure he carried his duties. Under sections XXI and XXVI, births and deaths at sea on a British Vessel, registration is compulsory.
*May = to have the potentiality to, be at liberty to, be permitted by circumstances to.
http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/View?path=Browse/Legislation%20(by%20date)&active=yes&mno=4044
Under the 1836 act there was no penalty for non-registration of a birth. A penalty not exceeding £2 was introduced in Section 39 of the 1874 Registration of Births & Deaths Act, for the non-registration of a birth (the wording of the Act is actually for “failing to give information concerning the birth…….. as required by the said Acts”).

Stan

[Andrew Tarr]

The absence of information proves only that - the absence of information.  The reason may be illegitimacy, but that can only be proved by some other evidence.  Illegitimate children did not necessarily adopt their 'step'father's surname.  And births were not necessarily registered, though people commonly thought baptism was an acceptable substitute.  A gt-gt-aunt of mine was in the 1851 census in Devon but cannot be found in the birth registers, and she certainly was not illegitimate.

[Ruskie]

Have you considered that he might have been registered as Thomas John rather than John Thomas? It's not too unusual to find that first and middle names were swapped.

[Rosinish]

Hi Honor,

As Ruskie mentioned he may have reversed his name (more common than you'd expect)

Closest I could find was;

Thomas John Norton
Christened   18 Jan 1863
TOPSHAM,DEVON,ENGLAND
Father John Isaacs Richards Norton
Mother Sarah Ann

It would have been an idea to state where you acquired the circa date for John Thomas' birth?

Was it from census/marriage/death?

If census, was he with parents or was this post marriage?

If post marriage, he may not have been sure of his place of birth although probably "somewhere" in Devon as his parents may have moved while he was young & he assumed that was where he was born?

I did a quick search for Devon, 1860 - 1866 (surnames may give a clue if he was illegitimate)

http://www.rootschat.com/links/01ihq/

Annie

[GailB]

Do you have his marriage certificate? If so, was a father mentioned on that?