Family History Surprises

[Top-of-the-hill]

 There is not much of interest among my ancestors, but one of my gr. grandfathers, born in Berwickshire, went to New Zealand in 1864. I found his obituary a good many years ago, and was rather startled to read that he was a "prominent Orangeman" and a W.P.M. (past master?) of the Royal Black Preceptory. He was also a member of the I.O.O.F.A.C. and if anyone knows what that was/is, I would love to know.

[coombs]

I know my married grandfather had a fling with an unmarried woman in about October 1950 as she had a son in July 1951. I wash shocked to find out recently she married in April 1951 to my grandfather's cousin, and the baptism of the child in June 1952 has the mother's new husband listed as the father, obviously to save face. I have seen photos of the son born 1951 as an adult and he is the spit of my grandad.

We have spoken a lot about bridal pregnancies, and it makes you wonder what percentage out of the 100% of the grooms was not the father but helping the mother out. I say slightly higher than NPE's within the mother's marriage, which is about 1 to 2%, so I say about 3% of the time the mother married another man while pregnant and not the blood father. Only DNA testing will eventually give an accurate figure.

I have found though many pregnant brides knew the husband for some time before marriage, such as through family letters, living next door in censuses, banns being read a year or so before they wed or they had a base child before marrying and the mother gave her maiden name and the name of the father, then she married him soon after, or when pregnant with their second child.

[DianaCanada]

Another surprise in my tree was an accused witch - my 8x g-grandmother, Elizabeth Austin Dicer.  She was accused of witchcraft in Gloucester, Massachusetts in 1692.  She was arrested and jailed but was eventually released and never tried.

"Elizabeth Dicer was a local woman who had been fined thirteen times in the past for calling Mary English’s mother a “black-mouthed witch and a thief.”"

https://historyofmassachusetts.org/the-accused-witches-of-gloucester/

My kids also have a witch in their family tree (besides me  ) - Susannah North Martin, born in Buckinghamshire in 1621, whom I discovered while researching some of their New England lines.  Susannah was one of the witches executed at Salem, Massachusetts.  Apparently the problem was she crossed a field on an inclement day and managed to not get her skirts wet!  A witch for sure!

[DianaCanada]

I know my married grandfather had a fling with an unmarried woman in about October 1950 as she had a son in July 1951. I wash shocked to find out recently she married in April 1951 to my grandfather's cousin, and the baptism of the child in June 1952 has the mother's new husband listed as the father, obviously to save face. I have seen photos of the son born 1951 as an adult and he is the spit of my grandad.

We have spoken a lot about bridal pregnancies, and it makes you wonder what percentage out of the 100% of the grooms was not the father but helping the mother out. I say slightly higher than NPE's within the mother's marriage, which is about 1 to 2%, so I say about 3% of the time the mother married another man while pregnant and not the blood father. Only DNA testing will eventually give an accurate figure.

I have found though many pregnant brides knew the husband for some time before marriage, such as through family letters, living next door in censuses, banns being read a year or so before they wed or they had a base child before marrying and the mother gave her maiden name and the name of the father, then she married him soon after, or when pregnant with their second child.

I have an ancestor, Naomi Boorman, of Burwash in E. Sussex, whose banns were read to one Richard Howe in January of 1801.  In July she married John Barden, and between the two of them I have quite a number of DNA matches, and at least one of those does seem to indicate that the oldest son, born ca Sep 1801, was John's child. In other words, I match to a descendant of Thomas, their first son, and I descend from their sixth child, James.  This could mean we just share some Boorman DNA, but it seems a bit far back to be showing up in a standard DNA test.

Perhaps Richard got wind that Naomi had been "with" Thomas and told her the marriage was off and then Thomas did the right thing.

[Erato]

"managed to not get her skirts wet!"

And it's true, damn it!  Mary English’s mother was a “black-mouthed witch and a thief.”

[DianaCanada]

"managed to not get her skirts wet!"

And it's true, damn it!  Mary English’s mother was a “black-mouthed witch and a thief.”

No misogyny among the Puritans, right?! Ha.

[coombs]

I know my married grandfather had a fling with an unmarried woman in about October 1950 as she had a son in July 1951. I wash shocked to find out recently she married in April 1951 to my grandfather's cousin, and the baptism of the child in June 1952 has the mother's new husband listed as the father, obviously to save face. I have seen photos of the son born 1951 as an adult and he is the spit of my grandad.

We have spoken a lot about bridal pregnancies, and it makes you wonder what percentage out of the 100% of the grooms was not the father but helping the mother out. I say slightly higher than NPE's within the mother's marriage, which is about 1 to 2%, so I say about 3% of the time the mother married another man while pregnant and not the blood father. Only DNA testing will eventually give an accurate figure.

I have found though many pregnant brides knew the husband for some time before marriage, such as through family letters, living next door in censuses, banns being read a year or so before they wed or they had a base child before marrying and the mother gave her maiden name and the name of the father, then she married him soon after, or when pregnant with their second child.

I have an ancestor, Naomi Boorman, of Burwash in E. Sussex, whose banns were read to one Richard Howe in January of 1801.  In July she married John Barden, and between the two of them I have quite a number of DNA matches, and at least one of those does seem to indicate that the oldest son, born ca Sep 1801, was John's child. In other words, I match to a descendant of Thomas, their first son, and I descend from their sixth child, James.  This could mean we just share some Boorman DNA, but it seems a bit far back to be showing up in a standard DNA test.

Perhaps Richard got wind that Naomi had been "with" Thomas and told her the marriage was off and then Thomas did the right thing.

Sounds plausible that John was the father, and Richard knew so told Naomi it is all over. I would say the majority of pregnant brides married the father, but always allow for a small element of doubt as is in my case in my tree with the 1951 born relative whose blood father was the legal father's paternal cousin.

I have a couple who wed in May 1784 and the bride gave birth to their first child in July 1784, her DOB is listed on her baptism, and she was baptised as the child of the mother and her new husband. So this means the mother fell pregnant around October 1783, and was 18 at the time she got pregnant. They lived in a weaving community as the groom was a weaver as was the bride's father. No 100% guarantees but I would say with 99% certainty the man she wed was the father, you can never be 100% sure of anything. But bridal pregnancy was very, very common anyway so far from unusual for a couple to marry at any time during the brides pregnancy.

[Stanwix England]

I think for me, the surprising thing was how much it's changed my perception of history.

For example, I thought that as a young working class woman, if you had a baby out of wedlock you were doomed forever and shunned by society.

That doesn't seem to have been the case in the towns that various branches of my family came from. There was occasionally some creative census answering to cover up a birth, but they were not that creative which is why I've been able to find out the truth. Or they didn't lie at all, even to the census taker. In most cases that I can see in my own tree, illegitimate babies continued to live with their birth mothers. I think that the neighbours must have known and those women were not shunned. Many went on to marry. And no doubt there were several families on the same street in similar situations. I guess times were hard and people understood that they could just as easily end up in the same boat, so there was perhaps more empathy.

[coombs]

My 3xgreat grandmother was the daughter of a successful wheelwright in a small Sussex village. She fell pregnant in the spring of 1863 and the very likely father was still married to a wife who had TB. His wife died in November 1863 and my 3xgreat gran gave birth in late December 1863 in the small village, probably at home. The likely father wed the mother in 1864 and the baby was then baptised as the daughter of the mother's husband and the mother.