Whos the daddy?

[littlefacey]

Hello! 

I have a Sarah Jacquest Deacon born on the 27th of January 1818 in Walgrave. On her baptism record (2nd of Feb 1818) only her mother, Hannah Deacon (apparently a farmer)  is listed. Hannah married a William Jacquest on the 15th of March 1818 again in Walgrave.

I originally thought Sarah was an illegitimate child but it seems a very big coincidence that Sarah's middle name would be her mother's future husband? but if he was the father why would he be listed as the father? and why would she carry his name as a middle and not as a surname? Even he wasn't her father then why not take his surname anyway?

What are your thoughts on this?

[Marmalady]

I would say that at the time of her birth her mother was unmarried, hence only the mother being named at baptism, and Sarah having her mother's surname

But then a couple of months later, the mother married the baby's father.

Unmarried mothers often included the father's name as part of the baby's full name - especially if the father acknowledged paternity

As to why the father was not acknowledged in the baptismal records -- sometimes the Vicar had strict rules about how such things were handled

I have a couple who married in Dec 1834  then 3 days later a child was baptised under the mother's maiden name with no mention of the groom (I do not know if he was the actual father or not)

[littlefacey]

Thank you