Parentage problems!

[Jebber]

Hi     

Posted " - I assumed that Amelia had had John with the man she married but as they weren't legally married at the time of his birth, his father's name couldn't be entered onto the birth certificate."     

Certainly both names can be entered on the registration if the father was present ( and signed ), married or not, generating 2 indices pointing to the

same registration.     
It has been the subject of a recent thread on RootsChat and GRO have confirmed to me by email.       


What I do not know is     
     
1) How long that situation has been allowable.   

2) What the dates in this case really are   

3) Why you do not just tell us the detail?


 
   

Since 1875 the unmarried father had to attend the registration for his name to be included on the birth certificate, before that a woman could name anyone whether they were the father or not, I have quite a few such examples.

Although not a common occurrence at the time you are talking about a girl could marry at 12 and a boy at 14.

[itsrobert]

As I have said, I do not want to include any identifying information. I have given as much as possible but I'm sure you can understand that this is fairly close to home and I don't particularly want a permanent record of it all floating about on the internet forever!

I do very much appreciate everyone's help, though - it has been interesting to discuss it and some of your questions have prompted me to think about new possibilities or check small details I would not otherwise have thought of. It seems that whilst unlikely, it is possible that Ellen could have given birth at a very young age and that Amelia could have raised the child as her own. Then again, it could just be an error on the baptism register. I really have checked every possible record I can find and I don't think any document will prove without doubt who John's biological parents were. Sadly, there is no one left to ask who would remember.

[[Ray]]

All the info currently available ( and possibly more ) will still be available . . . . . .
Are you running the risk of distorting the truth because of incorrect assumptions?     
Will generations down the line be thankful to you for not getting it as correct as you can when you have/had an opportunity?     


Rootschatters are only too pleased  ( to be asked ) to help



 
 

[Girl Guide]

From Robert

As I have said, I do not want to include any identifying information. I have given as much as possible but I'm sure you can understand that this is fairly close to home and I don't particularly want a permanent record of it all floating about on the internet forever!

Robert has made it clear that this is a sensitive issue for him and we should respect that wish.  We all love helping but there are times when we should stand back and allow the poster to do what they feel is right.  For Robert this means no names. Perhaps sometime in the future he may decide to reveal names - his choice.

[Sloe Gin]

I assumed that Amelia had had John with the man she married but as they weren't legally married at the time of his birth, his father's name couldn't be entered onto the birth certificate.

The father's name could have been entered on the certificate, but only if he was present at the registration of the birth.  If your assumption is right, they could have been under the same misapprehension - or it could just be that he was unable to attend.

However I do think it likely that John's mother was Ellen.  It could explain why they waited as long as possible before registering the birth, there may have been lengthy discussions on what to do for the best.  The baptism is another matter.  The priest may well have been aware of the situation, so they wouldn't have got away with attributing the baby to the wrong mother.  As others have said, Helenae is the Latin form used for Helen, Ellen and Eleanor. Those names are somewhat interchangeable, I have one ancestor who is recorded under all three at different times.

I think the ID of John as "grandson" and not "son" (of Amelia) in that first census is quite telling.

If Ellen was mature for her age, then she might certainly have been capable of bearing a child at 12.  It's not common, but it does happen, and there was little in the way of contraception available then.  (I did not know until reading her obituaries this week that Aretha Franklin became pregnant at 12 and had a child at 13, and another at 14.)

It could simply be a mistake on the baptism register, but as you have seen the original and there doesn't seem to be much room for confusion with only one baptism on that day, it seems to be less likely.  Hopefully something may turn up one day to throw a bit more light on this.  In the meantime I completely understand your reticence about revealing names and places.

[iolaus]

Was Amelia and Ellen's mother called Amelia?

Just wondering about the grandson element

And if at registration she was asked for mother's name (meaning baby's mother) and gave her own mothers name - especially if they (mother and daughter) went together and if the registrar made the assumption it was the adult woman's baby rather than the pre-teen's baby then either didn't correct him, or couldn't read it to realise it was wrong

[Milliepede]

Grandmother was Mary Jane. 

[Ruskie]

I think the ID of John as "grandson" and not "son" (of Amelia) in that first census is quite telling.

The relationship of each person to the Head of Household was supposed to be given on the census. John's relationship to the head of household was grandson, so this is correct.

It can be a bit of a grey area and exact relationships are not always given, eg "visitor" rather than "wife's sister".

I suppose anything is possible and it comes down to whether you believe the registration of birth or the record of baptism. Hopefully something more will come to light to prove it one way or another.

[itsrobert]

I assumed that Amelia had had John with the man she married but as they weren't legally married at the time of his birth, his father's name couldn't be entered onto the birth certificate.

The father's name could have been entered on the certificate, but only if he was present at the registration of the birth.  If your assumption is right, they could have been under the same misapprehension - or it could just be that he was unable to attend.

However I do think it likely that John's mother was Ellen.  It could explain why they waited as long as possible before registering the birth, there may have been lengthy discussions on what to do for the best.  The baptism is another matter.  The priest may well have been aware of the situation, so they wouldn't have got away with attributing the baby to the wrong mother.  As others have said, Helenae is the Latin form used for Helen, Ellen and Eleanor. Those names are somewhat interchangeable, I have one ancestor who is recorded under all three at different times.

I think the ID of John as "grandson" and not "son" (of Amelia) in that first census is quite telling.

If Ellen was mature for her age, then she might certainly have been capable of bearing a child at 12.  It's not common, but it does happen, and there was little in the way of contraception available then.  (I did not know until reading her obituaries this week that Aretha Franklin became pregnant at 12 and had a child at 13, and another at 14.)

It could simply be a mistake on the birth register, but as you have seen the original and there doesn't seem to be much room for confusion with only one baptism on that day, it seems to be less likely.  Hopefully something may turn up one day to throw a bit more light on this.  In the meantime I completely understand your reticence about revealing names and places.

Many thanks for your very thoughtful and considered reply. I have to admit that my gut, after looking at every available document (online, printed and in person in church!), leads me towards the same conclusion. The church he was baptised in was located on the very street his family lived on and he was born on. So, I think the priest would know all the ins and outs of family life. Lots of different strands of my family converged on that very small area and everyone was baptised and married in the same church. In fact, while looking at the baptism register I actually photographed 33 other records that relate to my family! And that was in just one bound volume. And I didn’t spot any other inaccuracies in any of those records. It’s just a bit of a shock to think that such a young girl could end up pregnant and and giving birth to my great-grandfather. But I guess everyone is human. If this scenario is true, one thing is reassuring and that is the way Amelia and her husband raised John as their own. That reveals something of their character.