Always expect the unexpected!

[Deirdre784]

Does a DNA test tell you that her twins weren't her husband's children, and also, who he really was .....

[coombs]

On the subject of children, my great grandmother Emily Smith had two children in quick succession before she married, although both died in infancy.

She was about six months pregnant when she married in December 1868 and gave birth to a son in June 1869. There was then a six year gap before she gave birth to twins in June 1875. There were no further children.  So far so good.

Then I did a DNA test and discovered that the twins were not fathered by her husband, but by a man from the other end of the county. At that point I'd done thirty years research and I didn't recognise any of my close matches!

I'm about to suggest to a descendant of the first son that they do a DNA test, just in case Emily was carrying another man's child at the time she married.

 So many questions. Did she know? Did her husband know? Did the twins know? Did the father know?  There can be no doubt. The resemblance, even in the present generation, is striking.

This means Emily became pregnant with the twins in the autumn of 1974, probably born a month early as twins often were born early. So around October 1874. Maybe the supposed husband was working away a lot, if he worked as a labourer he may have worked away for weeks at a time.

I know bridal pregnancies were very common in those days. Although over time DNA testing will reveal what percentage of the men she was marrying was the father of the unborn baby or another man. I say about 2 to 3%.

[coombs]

I just found a direct ancestor transported to Australia in 1791. I found at Suffolk Lowestoft branch the microfilm of the poor law records that survive for his deanery lead me to find he was in jail in the 1780s when his wife and children wee in the workhouse, then when I was searching online later on, the newspaper archives said he was in trouble again in 1791 for stealing a hog and transported to NSW for 7 years.