Impossible births

[andrewalston]

There are SOME legitimate bouncing-around-the-world people.

My eldest niece, long living in Canberra, had her first child there. However the baptism was done by a family friend here in Lancashire.

Next month she is getting married - in the south of France.

[brigidmac]

 one relation was a coalpicker she had a daughter in 1902
 then disappeared
reppeared in 1907 with 3 more children
then she married their father and baptised those 3 children same year

turned out our husband was a gold miner and theyd been in south africa before he returned to Bolton lancs,

she also had a child with same surname after the father.s death which i would have thought was a mistake on trees but is quite common apparently


i wouldnt have believed it if hadnt seen shipping records and baptism s and then found a descendant who knew that some of their aunts and uncles were born South Africa

[Marmalady]

she also had a child with same surname after the father.s death which i would have thought was a mistake on trees but is quite common apparently

If a married woman had a child, it was assumed to be her husbands -- even if this was impossible due to the husband's absence or death.

All she had to do was turn up at the Register Office and say i am Mrs So-and-so, maiden name Such-and-such and here is my child -- and the child would be registered under her married name with the assumption it was her husband's child.

[Rosinish]

she also had a child with same surname after the father.s death which i would have thought was a mistake on trees but is quite common apparently

Have you looked at the BC to see what it says as you might be surprised?

I have a Scottish BC for a child born to a 'still' married woman (i.e. not divorced/widowed) & her partner.

The child is registered under 3 surnames...her marital surname which was legally her surname, her maiden surname (which signifies the illegitimacy) & the surname of the child's father who attended the registration (or the child wouldn't be recorded with his surname) but...

On the child's BC, the mother admits her child is not her husband's, who is named (as being her husband) although not as the child's father!
That BC is a wealth of info.

I have no idea how illegitimate children born in the same circumstances are recorded elsewhere?

Annie

[mcleeds]

I've had baptism records for 1874 suggested for people born in 1802.

Finally baptised at 72? A likely story.

For the same ancestor, who was born in Rosscommon, Ireland and later migrated to a Co Durham, England, some bright spark has put on their Ancestry Tree that, despite the ancestor in question having lived in England for some 40 years, they went back to Ireland to die ...?

[AntonyMMM]

If a married woman had a child, it was assumed to be her husbands -- even if this was impossible due to the husband's absence or death.

All she had to do was turn up at the Register Office and say i am Mrs So-and-so, maiden name Such-and-such and here is my child -- and the child would be registered under her married name with the assumption it was her husband's child.

Not strictly true - there is a common law presumption of paternity for a child born to a married couple. That is why a married woman can register a birth alone and have her husband recorded as the father without him being present to confirm it .. BUT if she does that knowing it to be false ( through absence or death) then she commits a serious criminal offence.

However we all know it happened (and probably still does) and the chance of being found out were slim.

she also had a child with same surname after the father.s death which i would have thought was a mistake on trees but is quite common apparently

In England/Wales births weren't registered under any surname until 1969 ... the surname in the index is that of one (or both) of the parents named on the entry, depending on their marital status.

So if a widow has an illegitimate child and she is still known as Mrs "dead husband's surname"  then that is the surname the entry will be indexed under because it is her name, nothing to do with her husband ( and the entry may also have a maiden name shown)

[coombs]

I have some adult baptisms in my tree. One at just 23 but one at 62.

I always get a bit sceptical when a woman ancestor/potential ancestor has her last child over the age of 45, I know it did happen, perhaps it was more common than you think. It is more common nowadays due to advances in medical science. Some genealogy books say be a bit suspect if the penultimate child was born 7 or 8 years before the last child, could be an illegitimate grandchild.

[mcleeds]

I have some adult baptisms in my tree. One at just 23 but one at 62.

I always get a bit sceptical when a woman ancestor/potential ancestor has her last child over the age of 45, I know it did happen, perhaps it was more common than you think. It is more common nowadays due to advances in medical science. Some genealogy books say be a bit suspect if the penultimate child was born 7 or 8 years before the last child, could be an illegitimate grandchild.

People fathering children at 45 or even rather older is not uncommon at all, but normally that's men in second (or beyond) marriages, (after their first spouse had generally passed) to spouses who are generally at least 5-10 years younger.

There are legitimate examples, even in centuries long past, of women giving birth in middle age. A famous example is Maria Christiana, Princess of Saxony, who had a child, a daughter, aged 51 in 1822.

[coombs]

I have some adult baptisms in my tree. One at just 23 but one at 62.

I always get a bit sceptical when a woman ancestor/potential ancestor has her last child over the age of 45, I know it did happen, perhaps it was more common than you think. It is more common nowadays due to advances in medical science. Some genealogy books say be a bit suspect if the penultimate child was born 7 or 8 years before the last child, could be an illegitimate grandchild.

People fathering children at 45 or even rather older is not uncommon at all, but normally that's men in second (or beyond) marriages, (after their first spouse had generally passed) to spouses who are generally at least 5-10 years younger.

There are legitimate examples, even in centuries long past, of women giving birth in middle age. A famous example is Maria Christiana, Princess of Saxony, who had a child, a daughter, aged 51 in 1822.

I have a male ancestor whose first child and last child were born 42 years apart in 1818 and 1860. His first wife died in 1846 and he remarried in 1847 to a much younger woman.

It is easy to assume that a spinster ancestor marrying (before BMD and census eras where you get better knowledge on their age) was about 20 or so when she married but she could have been older, maybe even late 30s or 40 and that may explain why she had just 2 or 3 children.

I have one female ancestor who wed in 1725 in Norwich, and her last child born 1739. I would assume she was about 20 or so when she wed but not necessarily. I have not been able to pin down her baptism or parentage but have a keen eye on a 1691 baptism. That would make her 48 when she had her last child.