How easy was it to register a childs birth with deceased fathers name

[Guest]

How easy was it for a woman to register childrens births with deceased husbands name
Have a man dying in the Dec Quarter of 1865
But wifey registers 4 children with his surname after his death one in Feb 1865 which is feasible
Three more one in Dec quarter 1866 so is a possible
But then one in 1868 and one in 1871 ?
She had moved in with someone else by 1871 and had children by him.
I think the ones born in 1868 and 1871 were his children ?

[Elaine ..Spain]

Is he named as the father on all of the birth certificates?

[Guest]

not got the birth certs Elaine but the birth regs yes
Harriet born in 1868 was baptised in 1882 with his name too

[Elaine ..Spain]

.. but if you have a Mr. Smith and a Mrs. Smith, they will have a child registered with the surname Smith.
Mr. Smith dies.
Mrs Smith then becomes pregnant again by another man - the child would still be registered with the surname Smith because that is the mother's name.

.. or am I not understanding your query!

[Elaine ..Spain]

Sorry - just read post 3 again - are you saying that the baptism shows the name of the deceased father?

[Guest]

yes Elaine it is on Harriets, not found the other baps yet , and I've just re-read my post oops I understand what you mean now , so that would make the children legitimate would it ? even though the father was dead

[Anne in Carlisle]

Well, no, if someone noticed Mr Smith was no longer around!!! But Mrs Smith had that name .... That's what she was known as, therefore that's the surname mentioned in the index. You would need to get the certificate to know if she had included the father's name. (Of course the child on a birth certificate has no surname, it is just assumed from one or other of the parents.)
Anne

[Guest]

thanks Elaine and Anne I'm getting myself confused again , I get it now.

[Christine in Herts]

OH's ancestor, Caroline Elizabeth WHITEHEAD, shows in census records etc as having been born in 1833-34.
Her baptism record is: 12 Jan 1834 St Mary's Portsea, d/o James WHITEHEAD†, seaman, & Ann

So far, so good. However...
Her parents' marriage was recorded as being 3 Feb 1825, James WHITEHEAD of HMS Victory, at St Marys, Portsea by Banns (both by mark) to Ann SANSBURY,
witn: Elizth COUZINS (x), Charles BENNETT [M062613; PR p12#35] IGI has transcribed Ann's maiden name as "LANSBURRY"

I have followed James WHITEHEAD's naval career as far as...
11 Dec 1828: run from Ramillies; from "Shorncliffe from Duty" [ADM 37/6890 Victory muster, sic; ADM35/4472 Ramillies pay; ADM37/7683 Ramillies muster] No ref in ADM53/1131 (ship's log) or ADM51/3400 (Capt's log)

A naval sailor who "ran" was subject to some pretty horrific punishments if caught - such as were likely to have a fatal outcome. In all the early censuses and subsequent church records, Ann and her family tend to show up in Portsea or Alverstoke - all firmly Naval territory. It's hard to imagine someone who had "run" returning to somewhere where he was likely to be looked for and which was, in any case, likely to be crawling with naval personnel interested in catching him. Ann married another three times after James's departure, the first of those being in Feb 1843.

It seems extremely unlikely, on the basis of that info, that James was actually Caroline's father, whatever the baptism register may say!

This is certainly one example that suggests that baptism registers were not necessarily full of truthful info.

Christine

[susan h]

A father didn't need to be present at a baptismal service to be named; therefore it follows that a dead husband could be entered as the child's father at baptism. If the baptism took place in a rural area it's unlikely a woman would get away with naming her dead husband as father as the Church/Chapel would be aware of her circumstances, BUT in a city, especially London it wouldn't be difficult. Many children were baptised when their father was away at sea or on Army duties etc.

[Guest]

As the mother was living with a new man (although dont think she married him )when Harriet was baptised in 1882 wonder why she put her husband who had been dead 17 years down as the father?

[susan h]

Can't answer that one Val. Who knows what thoughts went through our ancestors minds, perhaps she wanted all her children to be recorded with the same father's name. Little did our ancestors know that in the 20th/21st centuries their descendants would have access to parish registers, census and other documents; they could never have envisaged their fairy stories would be sussed.

[Guest]

she had other children with the new man and they have his name on the baps so wonder if she had a little affair or two? funny enough I found a newspaper article where this man put a bit in the paper saying he would not be responsible for his wifes debts?
They would just die now if they knew what we know

[susan h]

That's maybe the reason then Val, he (her partner) had told her under no circumstances should he be named as father as he could have known there were putative father's; if he'd been named at baptism or on the BC and she needed to claim Parish relief he, her partner, would have been chased to 'pay up'. Sounds like he knew he was NOT the father.

[Guest]

thanks Sue for your input, makes sense now. off to bed nightx

[susan h]

Night, Val............sleep like a baby x

[Guy]

How easy was it for a woman to register childrens births with deceased husbands name
Have a man dying in the Dec Quarter of 1865
But wifey registers 4 children with his surname after his death one in Feb 1865 which is feasible
Three more one in Dec quarter 1866 so is a possible
But then one in 1868 and one in 1871 ?
She had moved in with someone else by 1871 and had children by him.
I think the ones born in 1868 and 1871 were his children ?

Very easy, in fact almost certain.
Think of how births were registered between 1837 and 1875, the registrar would come round to the parents' house and ask questions about the birth.
When did it happen? Is it a boy or a girl? What is the mother's name? Then the question concerning surname this could be asked as -
What is your husband's name or what is the father's name?

If the first then the newborn would be named under the husband's name. If the latter possibly under the father's name but if it is not made clear the husband is dead under the husband's name (the default option under English law).

Much would depend on whether the registrar knew of the death of the husband, if the birth was in a town or city this would be unlikely if in a rural area it is possible he could know.
Cheers
Guy

[Olde Crone Holden]

In my experience, people were happy to tell bare faced lies to the registrar, but balked at lying to the Vicar. I wonder if the Vicar in this case may have made a mistake when entering Harriet's baptism? Maybe he wrote it up later from memory and could only remember that the mother was married at some point!

OC

[Guest]

thanks everyone I'm almost tempted to buy all the childrens birth certs but cannot afford it, would love to see whats on those for the Father.

[Janet in Yorkshire]

Could Harriet have been going to enter some kind of residential employment in 1882, where the employer required that employees should be C of E/chapel? (I have a twig being bp for a second time when she was about to go into service - her mother was dead, father remarried, aunts in charge and the original bp had taken place outside of the family home parish, so couldn't be referred to.)


I also have (in my tree, LOL) a child born illegitimate in 1909, registered under mother's maiden name (Ma..), no father named on the cert. The mother married 2 yrs later - I don't think mother's husband (McD) was father of the child, although the child took step-father's surname. After serving in WW1, step-father died in Jan 1919. On the army claim form, parish priest & wife entered the names of 2 dependents - soldier's widow (Mrs McD) and his son (Master McD.) I have found a 1920 bp for Master McD; it states birth date as 1909, bp date 1920 - child son of Mr & Mrs McD.
The family are mystified about the late bp, because they have in their possession a first communion cert, dated pre 1920. (They were also surprised to discover that the child had been registered with the surname Ma - but at least they have now been able to purchase the birth certificate.) I think this late bp was probably to help the mother get a pension from the army - no apparent birth cert, so a bp record was given instead. I don't think even the army would argue with the word of a RC priest! I've no evidence of an earlier bp for the son, either as Ma or McD.

Jay