Is the man who my 6xgreat gran married likely to be my 5xgreat grans dad?

[tazzie]

Sophia surname on marriage is correct as her mother was not married so Akehurst. It's hard to say if William was her father or was doing the gallant thing by marrying Frances.

One of my ancestors was baptised by a very helpful vicar.... He added that she was the daughter of
   One man who had abandoned her mother after promising to marry her and the mother was now married to another man who had brought the child up . It names the elusive father who I'm still looking for.
    Tazzie
 

[coombs]

Sophia surname on marriage is correct as her mother was not married so Akehurst. It's hard to say if William was her father or was doing the gallant thing by marrying Frances.

One of my ancestors was baptised by a very helpful vicar.... He added that she was the daughter of
   One man who had abandoned her mother after promising to marry her and the mother was now married to another man who had brought the child up . It names the elusive father who I'm still looking for.
    Tazzie
 

Did she marry the 2nd man during pregnancy or after she had your ancestor?

I have one ancestor who wed 7 months into pregnancy and the new husband was named as the father of the new baby on the baptism record in August 1784 so I would say with 99% certainty that he was the father. It was a weaving family who wed into another weaving family. Of course there is the 1% chance he gallantly stepped in for a man who had fled or died, but if he did, that made him just as much an ancestor as the sperm donor.

As said in the OP's case, it is hard to say if William Stephens was the blood father if he was not named on the baptism, and Sophia kept her mothers name as her name.

[nelwild]

Im not really familiar with marriage procedure to be honest,as ive never been married myself.Back then,was it usual for a vicar to refuse to marry a lady who had a baby?If so,would it make any difference if the person she wanted to marry wasnt the father of the baby?

[coombs]

Im not really familiar with marriage procedure to be honest,as ive never been married myself.Back then,was it usual for a vicar to refuse to marry a lady who had a baby?If so,would it make any difference if the person she wanted to marry wasnt the father of the baby?

If she had already had the baby when she got wed he would not usually refuse, but if he let a pregnant lady marry and the groom was not the father, then if the vicar did not know the groom was not the father, he'd be none the wiser so would allow it, but if he knew she was marrying a man who was not the father, I am not sure, but he would probably allow it but when the baby was finally born, he may only allow the woman to baptise the baby under her maiden name with no father listed. Such as "mother now married, but not to father" or in Tazzie's example given. Or he may have known she married during pregnant to a man who was not the father but turned a blind eye and allowed him to name himself as father on the baptism after the baby arrived.

For example, Mary Bloggs of Norfolk got pregnant in July 1784, the father Henry Hamilton fled or died in September 1784, and Mary Bloggs started dating fellow villager Joe Soap in October 1784, and they wed in January 1785 when she was 6 months pregnant, and the vicar knew who the real father was, and when the baby was born, he allowed the baby to be baptised as "Richard, son of Joseph and Mary Soap". or he may have said "Richard son of Mary Soap, now married, but not to Richard's father".

[tazzie]

 
[/quote]

Did she marry the 2nd man during pregnancy or after she had your ancestor?

I have one ancestor who wed 7 months into pregnancy and the new husband was named as the father of the new baby on the baptism record in August 1784 so I would say with 99% certainty that he was the father. It was a weaving family who wed into another weaving family. Of course there is the 1% chance he gallantly stepped in for a man who had fled or died, but if he did, that made him just as much an ancestor as the sperm donor.

As said in the OP's case, it is hard to say if William Stephens was the blood father if he was not named on the baptism, and Sophia kept her mothers name as her name.
[/quote]


 Hi. Hannah was baptised aged 2 about 6 months after her mother had married. As I read through the registers for this time the vicar fills in many extra details.

[coombs]

The vicar was thorough then, to add all these useful notes.

[arthurk]

Im not really familiar with marriage procedure to be honest,as ive never been married myself.Back then,was it usual for a vicar to refuse to marry a lady who had a baby?If so,would it make any difference if the person she wanted to marry wasnt the father of the baby?

No. There are a few reasons why a vicar might refuse to marry someone, but having a child out of wedlock isn't one of them. Nor is the fact that the marriage would be to someone who wasn't the child's father.

The main reasons for refusal would be things one of the parties not being free to marry, not having parental permission (if a minor), being too closely related to the other party, or not completing the preliminary procedures (banns or licence) properly.

[nelwild]

Thanks for the replies.

im thinking that DNA evidence might be the only way of deciding whats most probable.

Nel.

[coombs]

Im not really familiar with marriage procedure to be honest,as ive never been married myself.Back then,was it usual for a vicar to refuse to marry a lady who had a baby?If so,would it make any difference if the person she wanted to marry wasnt the father of the baby?

No. There are a few reasons why a vicar might refuse to marry someone, but having a child out of wedlock isn't one of them. Nor is the fact that the marriage would be to someone who wasn't the child's father.

The main reasons for refusal would be things one of the parties not being free to marry, not having parental permission (if a minor), being too closely related to the other party, or not completing the preliminary procedures (banns or licence) properly.

As we know, lots of women married after an illegitimate birth, sometimes to the father and others to another man.

On the subject of banns, I have found some banns read but no subsequent marriages yet the couple stayed together.