Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Genealogy
Original poster

Unmarried mother and 10 children with no father(s)

145 replies

Hmmph · 18/08/2020 19:21

I have been researching my family tree.

I have a lady in it who was not married and had 10 children. None of the children have a father in the birth certificates. They were born either side of 1900 and fairly regularly.

Any ideas what this is??

OP posts:
Travelledtheworld · 18/08/2020 21:15

Are they definitely all her children ? She wasn't looking after nieces or nephews ? Parents with big families often sent their children to live with relatives.

ladycarlotta · 18/08/2020 21:18

@Moondust001

Another possibility - and it's interesting that so many people have landed on the "married man" explanation - is that she is the one that was married and left her husband. One of my ancestors did this - she left him, but subsequently had children and there was no father named, and it wasn't him (he'd shacked up with someone else!). She was also listed as head of household. It was more "shameful" for a man to take up with a married woman than the other way around. Because "men have their needs", whereas, of course, women don't, so any woman who leaves her marriage and then takes up with another man would be anathema. She ought to be pure and chaste if she can't cut it married. Possibly ought to have entered a Nunnery!
the reason I lit on married man not married woman is that if she were married, OP would presumably have found her marriage record. Plus she always went by her maiden name.
ladycarlotta · 18/08/2020 21:21

@Hmmph

Eldest son/child has the same name as her own father.

The next sons name however is more interesting. His first name is a name which can be a first name or a surname and his middle name seems quite unusual.

You could run a search on the second son's peculiar names and see if anything comes up.

Trade directories are always a good way to track people down between census appearances too.

BiscuitLovers098124 · 18/08/2020 21:22

Mistress and the married man pays her some keep? Maybe he owned the farm! Do you have details of what the children did?

Wolfgirrl · 18/08/2020 21:23

@managedmis I imagine the older children looked after the little ones, and that there wasnt any real social services to stop babies and toddlers being looked after by, say, a 12 year old sibling.

OP is there any possibility she was in a relationship with a relative? Confused it would explain the regularity of the births, the fact no father is listed & that she was living at home with them, at least for a while. Rural hamlets were quite notorious for this years ago, maybe due to lack of choice of partners in the area etc. If they were on a farm maybe they kept having kids as they needed labourers?

Wolfgirrl · 18/08/2020 21:23

Also the first son being named after her father.

shiningstar2 · 18/08/2020 21:26

Interesting that on the 1901 census she has 3 children with the eldest being aged 6.

By the 1911 census she has 5 children but the eldest was only 12. So where have the older children gone? Ten years later the 6 year old is now 16 but not on the 1911 census. The oldest child on the 1911 census, now 12 would only have been aged 2 on the first census. The 16 year old has now left home, maybe gone into service? Is there another between the 12 year old and 16 year old who has also left home...or not? As she was living at her parents' home on the 1901 census but not for the 1911 census, does that mean that there is a different father for most of the 5 children still living with her?

Who can tell. but I suspect a married man, maybe still living with his wife and appearing on a census elsewhere but 'having his cake and eating it'. Men didn't always tell their wives what they earned and maybe able to give a bit towards the upkeep of his illegitimate children, but not prepared to formally acknowledge them,

gingercatsarebest · 18/08/2020 21:28

@Wolfgirrl

Also the first son being named after her father.
Maybe her father is their father?
Wolfgirrl · 18/08/2020 21:29

@gingercatsarebest

That's what I was insinuating Confused although it feels very disrespectful if I'm wrong...

gingercatsarebest · 18/08/2020 21:32

@Wolfgirrl. true but it's possible.

Minister01 · 18/08/2020 21:34

Interesting thread.

What line of work were her parents in? Have you researched her siblings or the children’s baptisms/wedding certificates?

gingercatsarebest · 18/08/2020 21:35

of course names run in families. ....when I did my family tree there were so many franks and Williams through the generations it was v confusing

ItsmineAllmine · 18/08/2020 21:36

Could one (or more) of the children have died in infancy?

ItsmineAllmine · 18/08/2020 21:42

Could she have been some sort of old equivalent of a foster mother or similar? Maybe young unmarried girls with unwanted pregnancies handed the babies over to her? And she put her name on the birth certificate so there was never any link to the biological mother? No idea if that's even feasible.

CoffeeRunner · 18/08/2020 21:46

In those times I think it was common to go into service/leave school at 14. So that could well explain the absence of the 16 & possibly 16 or 14 year olds on the 1911 census.

Although times have changed hugely. They also haven’t. I still think the most likely explanation is a married man who was unable to legally divorce for whatever reason & therefore did not live with your relative.

CoffeeRunner · 18/08/2020 21:47

15 or 14!

Chezacheza · 18/08/2020 21:49

@BiscuitLovers098124

Mistress and the married man pays her some keep? Maybe he owned the farm! Do you have details of what the children did?
This is what I think!
AllTeaAllShade · 18/08/2020 21:49

Its possible her father could be the father if the children

SendHelp30 · 18/08/2020 21:58

Watching with interest

Annist · 18/08/2020 22:07

Sadly I think incest is the most likely option here.

minnieok · 18/08/2020 22:14

Most commonly her partner was a married man, very hard to divorce plus social stigma so women seemed to put up with their husbands having a new family in return for being housed and an allowance if wealthy

Original poster
Hmmph · 18/08/2020 22:19

Her father died before all her children were born, so not that. (Phew! Did I mention this is my family tree?) Her brothers all seem to have left home before children came along - she was the youngest child.

She is on the birth certificates as mother of the children.

I will check when the children were all born against her age tomorrow.

The eldest child died when he was 14, so that explains his absence in 1911. I know one child (a twin) died at 3 days old.

OP posts:
Original poster
Hmmph · 18/08/2020 22:22

Also, I have just realised she had a 1 or 2 year old in 2011 who isn’t on the census?!

OP posts:
gingercatsarebest · 18/08/2020 22:27

@Hmmph

Also, I have just realised she had a 1 or 2 year old in 2011 who isn’t on the census?!
As in not on the census anywhere or just at their house. as in staying with relatives?
surlycurly · 18/08/2020 22:34

Good grief, I'm riveted. We had a family tree drama last year that turned out to have a bit of a sad ending but it was fascinating to find out. Thank heavens it wasn't an overly familiar father Confused