Confirmation of illegitimacy

[MacGrigor]

Hello,

I’m just going through my file and seeking to confirm something. Judging by two dates, my ancestor Matthew King appears to be illegitimate, but I’ve seen cases like this before when the christening is recorded as two years (e.g. 1709/10) so it may not be the case.

What I have down is:

Matthew King, christened on the 15th of February 1709 in Warminster, at St. Denys’ Church. Son of Matthew and Eleanor

Matthew King and Eleanor Ponting, married on the 4th of May 1709 at the same church.

Have I got these dates correct?

I’d appreciate any help!

Adam

[CaroleW]

Have I got these dates correct?

Where did you get them from?  Have you viewed the actual entries or just transcriptions

What other proof do you have that Matthews parents were Matthew & Eleanor
What other proof do you have that her maiden name was Ponting?

[rosie99]

Wiltshire FHS have a baptism for Matthew 15 Feb 1709 at St Denys - father Matthew no mother mentioned. 

It looks as though he died in 1757 M.I. has him as son of Matthew

[MacGrigor]

What’s M.I.?

[LizzieW]

You've forgotten that the year started on 1st April at the time, so the marriage in June 1709 came before February 1709.  The year will have started on 1 April 1709 and ended on 31 March 1709.  The 1709/10 is to show that February 1709 would be equivalent to February 1710 if using our calendar, so the marriage was actually a few months before the birth.

[dawnsh]

For information MacGrigor because it will most probably come up again, the calendar changed in 1750

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_(New_Style)_Act_1750

[LizzieW]

You've forgotten that the year started on 1st April at the time

Oops sorry the year started on 25 March, but my original answer still stands, apart from getting the wrong date for the start of the year.

[MacGrigor]

Thanks for all of that. I was aware of the calendar change but not of the order of months! Thanks for clearing that up. So was he christened before his parents’ marriage or not?

Sorry. Have read and now understand.

[JohninSussex]

You've forgotten that the year started on 1st April at the time, so the marriage in June 1709 came before February 1709.  The year will have started on 1 April 1709 and ended on 31 March 1709.  The 1709/10 is to show that February 1709 would be equivalent to February 1710 if using our calendar, so the marriage was actually a few months before the birth.

They got married, and produced a child precisely nine months later (assuming a few days before the baptism).

"M.I."  I think refers to "memorial inscriptions" ie gravestones or similar.