Opinions would be appreciated

[Hampshire Lass]

I have been researching a particularly knotty branch of my tree and have come to the following conclusion but do not know how likely it is......

A woman was born in Norfolk in 1795 and in 1825 gave birth to an illegitimate son. The parish record states base born.

In 1829 the lady marries, in the same parish, and the parish record states that she is a widow.

Her husband is 13 years younger than her and they have a daughter together the following year.

I have researched using freereg, ancestry, findmypast and the genealogist and can come to no other conclusion but my question is.......

How likely is it that a lady would state she is a widow...when she clearly is not....and that the marriage would take place in the same Church as that of her illegitimate sons baptism?
Surely the priest would realise that she is not being truthful?

[Kiltpin]

Base Born does not always mean illegitimate. It could denote the lowest social standing. 

Regards 

Chas

[Greensleeves]

I never realised before reading Kiltpin's response that base born was also used for children born low-down in the pecking order.  That must have been very subjectively used too: if you didn't like someone, you could blight their reputation - and that of their offspring - for all eternity by an entry in the parish register.

[Hampshire Lass]

I didn't know that either. I thought baseborn meant the child of a single mother.

The baptism record gives the names of the mother but no fathers name so I assume in this case it means illegitimate.

In the process of untangling everything I found no marriage for the mother, either before or after her son was born.......apart from the marriage where she states she is a widow. I also found no burial for a previous husband with her son's surname. Then I found a baptism record for the mother which ties in nicely with subsequent censuses and her death record.

It really does look likely she lied when she stated she was a widow but I just wondered how likely this was.

[Gadget]

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=109168.0

[Viktoria]

Could it be possible that between 1825 and 1829 she did indeed marry,
became a widow and re married shortly after.?
Second marriages were almost necessary for widows with children,life was hard and women paid lower than men.
I know you have searched extensively but my paternal G. Grandmother appears in the 1891 census as a widow,but she was not, her second marriage must have broken down as she had moved from Nottingham to M/c
with her son who had his real name but hers is totally different,not her maiden name ,not her married name nor her second married name  described as a widow ,whilst her second husband is on a boat off Hull saying he is unmarried!!!
But It would be strange for  the priest not to know and parishioners not to comment as banns would surely have been read.
Perhaps she went into service out of her area so those years between would not be known to all and sundry .
What a mystery,that will keep you out of mischief for a year or two!
Do let us know how you go on.
Viktoria.

[Hampshire Lass]

Yes 'tis indeed a mystery!

The only marriage for her is the one in 1829 and the same surname is used then as on her son's baptism and her own baptism...... if indeed it is her.

Then the 1841 census has her with her husband. daughter ...... and son with her previous surname.

[dawnsh]

Is the vicar the same on both events?

[locksmith]

I do not see any possible context in a parish register for using the archiac meaning of 'lowly born' for base born. I don't think there would be any confusion as to what was meant as baseborn in a baptism record ie the mother was one of unmarried, possibly married but had a child with another man, or widowed.

Simon