so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?

[lisalisa]

Harriet was "domestic servant out of place" in 1881 because - I suspect - she was sacked for getting pregnant. She was staying - hiding? - with next-door neighbours. I've often wished that those employers had sacked her just a little later!

and is there a 'son' in that household who might be the father?

[chris_49]

John Edward Weyman died at El Alamein in 1942. My mother married my father in 1948. As I said, I don't know any Mantons who I could ask to test. A first cousin has tested and although she is a Harriet descendant she has the same unknown father as me, and her matches don't give any significant information.

My Manton match is quite remote, I agree. ThruLines in its wisdom has tried to suggest we are related on her father's side in some way, but the only match she has with me is on her mother's side which includes the Mantons.

[lisalisa]

I would be looking at the family Harriet is with in 1881, the sons with the family on the census are a bit young to be the father of Sarah, but do they have any older sons who could be the father and who might just be elsewhere on the census?

If so, then I'd do a tree for that family - I think if you put the name of a possible father in place (on an anc tree), then thrulines might come up with suggestions.
But if you create a tree for that family, then see what surnames you get, and search for that name amongst your matches and their trees.

(I've had a father living next door to his 'girlfriend' and illegitimate child, so it does/did happen).

[chris_49]

I'm not convinced by your Aitken theory. Mrs Aitken had been a Tidmarsh, and there is no son before William after her marriage, just a daughter. Tidmarsh is such a rare name that it was worth checking to see if she might have had a son before the marriage, but nobody nearby.

(I actually wonder if Harriet being enumerated with the Aitkens rather than the much less crowded Hancox house next door was a fiction to disguise the fact that they had a heavily pregnant unmarried teenage daughter living with them, from the enumerator.)

But mainly because domestic servants had such a restricted life - generally just one day off a week, and that only for the day. The master or young master of the house being the father is much more likely, I agree, and I know of an example nearby, but we have no way of finding out where that was - not necessarily locally.

[lisalisa]

(I actually wonder if Harriet being enumerated with the Aitkens rather than the much less crowded Hancox house next door was a fiction to disguise the fact that they had a heavily pregnant unmarried teenage daughter living with them, from the enumerator.)

I assume that the enumerator wasn't checking everyone off against a list or even having to see everyone who was in a household, so how would the enumerator know that she was pregnant!!
They weren't collecting info on which females were or weren't pregnant. 

There could've been any number of reasons why she was next door, it may even have only been the night in question.  She is listed as 'visitor' after all (not as boarder or lodger).

[Ashtone]

Also, as I stated in Reply #11 Elizabeth Aitken (nee Tidmarsh) was one of the witnesses at the 1885 Hancox/Manton wedding. So 4 years after the 1881 census there was still a friendship (or family connection?) between Harriett and Elizabeth Aitken.

[chris_49]

Until I get another Manton or Gaydon match, I'm resting this line for now. My only contact who is a definite line from both has not taken a DNA test and last time I messaged her she didn't reply - to complicate matters she is also related to me on another line, though more remotely.

The Aitkens were long-time neighbours but I fail to see anyone who could be Sarah's father, and I have no matches. There are any number of reasons why Harriet could be "visitor" - she could be just visiting at the time of the enumeration, for the day. I worked the 1981 census and found people didn't understand the criteria even then.
 

[chris_49]

Thanks very much for all your contributions anyway

[JAKnighton]

I have a similar situation, so here's some food for thought...

My 3x great-grandmother was born Lizzie Wade Rimes on October 7th 1868, the illegitimate daughter of Elizabeth Rimes. Banns were read out for a marriage between Elizabeth Rimes and Isaac Wade on December 13th, but the marriage didn't actually take place until exactly a year later, at the Peterborough Register Office.

The use of the middle name 'Wade' and then a quick attempt to marry Isaac strongly suggests Elizabeth considered him to be the father. In both the 1871 and 1881 census, Lizzie is recorded under his surname along with the rest of her legitimate siblings.

But when she married my 3x great-grandfather John Robinson in 1888, she uses the surname Rimes, and her father's name is left blank on the marriage certificate.

In 1948 when they celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary, a newspaper article described her as being the daughter of Isaac Wade. This was decades after his death, however, and obviously not an official document.

I have photographs of Lizzie and Isaac and in my opinion there is a resemblance between them. Isaac's features can also be seen in her descendants.

My DNA match percentage with descendants of Lizzie's younger legitimate siblings are consistent with Lizzie being a full-blooded sibling, which to me suggests that Isaac was in fact her biological father.

So like you, I'm left wondering why Isaac never claimed her officially, in what seems to have been a case of cold feet, only to marry Elizabeth and have many more children (thirteen, not including Lizzie!)