« on: Monday 31 August 20 22:51 BST (UK) »
I did start a thread a few years ago about infidelity in our ancestors days, and how there is a 2% chance of a non paternal event in your tree, and several replies were that women were more conservative back then and I agree, also they did not drive like we do and they were busy bringing children up a lot, and everyone knew everyone's business.
But if you were to find a non paternal event in your tree, would you dismiss that male as an ancestor, or would you still see them as an ancestor, seeing as they bought your subsequent ancestor up, gave them their surname, and shaped them and subsequent descendants. I think most of us, including me would go for the latter. Someone once said to me in a discussion years ago "If they bought them up and nurtured them, and disciplined them when need be, does it matter if they were the blood father?".
Researching:
LONDON, Coombs, Roberts, Auber, Helsdon, Fradine, Morin, Goodacre
DORSET Coombs, Munday
NORFOLK Helsdon, Riches, Harbord, Budery
KENT Roberts, Goodacre
SUSSEX Walder, Boniface, Dinnage, Standen, Lee, Botten, Wickham, Jupp
SUFFOLK Titshall, Frost, Fairweather, Mayhew, Archer, Eade, Scarfe
DURHAM Stewart, Musgrave, Wilson, Forster
SCOTLAND Stewart in Selkirk
USA Musgrave, Saix
ESSEX Cornwell, Stock, Quilter, Lawrence, Whale, Clift
OXON Edgington, Smith, Inkpen, Snell, Batten, Brain