The mystery of my GG Grandma and her sons

[longandwindingcountrylanes]

I've been researching my 2 x great grandma for a while and have hit a couple of brick walls!

I'm descended from the first of her 3 sons.
At the time of his birthday she had been married to her husband for about 3 years. Baby was given their surname (GGG had the husband's surname anyway as took it when they married). So, all appeared well.

HOWEVER, on the baby's birth certificate (I sent off for a copy), the space for "father's details" is left completely blank!

MEANWHILE, on the baptism record, ANOTHER man is named as the father! (although baby wasn't given his surname). He was given surname of his mother and her husband!

For historical context, this was in 1893 in Lancashire. Ordinary, working class people from what I've managed to discover about my GGG.

THEN, in 1900 she had her 2nd child and her husband was named as his father. So, the "other" man seems to have disappeared by then.

What do people make of this?

Seems strange that husband would accept her having her first baby with another man (in other words cheating), then seems to have stayed married long enough to have baby with husband a few years later.

In 1893, if the father's details were left blank on a birth certificate would this mean father wasn't known by the mother? Or unmarried? Not sure of the rules etc?

I think what you surmise is likely to be right. She got pregnant by another man, but her husband was prepared to accept this and bring up the child as his own. I think that has happened many times before! We don't know what the circumstances of that pregnancy were, it wouldn't necessarily be a long term affair. However I do find it more surprising the other man is named on the baptism certificate, since that would suggest he was involved or it was public knowledge. I don't think the baptism certificate is even a legal document so I'm surprised they didn't just lie about on there. Since you have the name of the other man, have you been able to find out anything about him - was he married to someone else for example? Was he related in any way to them?

Also the surname of the child wasn't actually registered on the birth certificate, just the first name, and you assume the mother's / parents' surname is the child's surname.

@Saker

I think what you surmise is likely to be right. She got pregnant by another man, but her husband was prepared to accept this and bring up the child as his own. I think that has happened many times before! We don't know what the circumstances of that pregnancy were, it wouldn't necessarily be a long term affair. However I do find it more surprising the other man is named on the baptism certificate, since that would suggest he was involved or it was public knowledge. I don't think the baptism certificate is even a legal document so I'm surprised they didn't just lie about on there. Since you have the name of the other man, have you been able to find out anything about him - was he married to someone else for example? Was he related in any way to them?

Saker, thanks for your reply, much appreciated. I just find it incredibly odd and surprising that my GGG would have been so bold as to actually name "another man" as the father on the baptism record. Especially when married to her husband at the time. Why not just pretend the baby was from her husband? I don't expect there would have been any kind of "paternity testing" available in those days. It just seems a very bold to do - for a woman in that era (1893) to openly declare someone other than her husband as the baby's father.

@Saker

I think what you surmise is likely to be right. She got pregnant by another man, but her husband was prepared to accept this and bring up the child as his own. I think that has happened many times before! We don't know what the circumstances of that pregnancy were, it wouldn't necessarily be a long term affair. However I do find it more surprising the other man is named on the baptism certificate, since that would suggest he was involved or it was public knowledge. I don't think the baptism certificate is even a legal document so I'm surprised they didn't just lie about on there. Since you have the name of the other man, have you been able to find out anything about him - was he married to someone else for example? Was he related in any way to them?

Unfortunately I've been unable to find out much about the named father. The name was rather common. Nothing on census records to show them living together later on or anything like that. In 1901 she was widdowed. First husband died. She re-married in 1907 (not to father or baby, but a different person entirely). On the 1907 marriage record she was described as widow of first husband. So, she must have stayed married to him until he died, despite other man fathering her baby. The father didn't seem to be related or linked to the family, no.

It does seem a very surprising thing to do especially as she presumably could have passed the child off as her husband's, unless he had been away for the whole period she could have become pregnant?

Just on the birth certifiate. After 1875 a man could only be put on the birth certificate if he went to register with the mother if they were unmarried so that might explain why he is not there even if known as the father www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Illegitimacy_in_England

Do you have the son's marriage certificate? Would be interesting to see who he put as the father.

Could easily been rape or employer, married before the birth, the right thing then

The name on the baptism cert could have been false, for propriety?
Ie - we can't have a blank, so we'll just write in John Smith?

What did they do for jobs?

Are the two potential fathers names alike? Could it have been a transcription error?

Is it a common surname in that district?

Thanks for all the replied, appreciated.
No, the 2 men's (husband and other man) surnames and first names were very different. No risk of transcription error.
GGG and her husband both worked as cotton weavers.
No idea what the father named on baptism did for work.

Oh and another curious thing: On the son's marriage certificate (he got married at 21 years of age), named the husband married to his mum at the time of his birth as his father. NOT the man named on the baptism record! So perhaps his mother was either unsure which of them WAS the father, or maybe she misled her son.

What was the husband's occupation?

If the first birth was in 1893 and you say they were married three years prior in 1890 and her second child wasn't born until 1900, that's quite a while. It would be fairly unusual for there to be only one child, then a gap of ten years before subsequent children.

Could it be that the husband was absent for much of that time, in the military possibly (or in prison!).

Perhaps she did have an affair while he was gone. Maybe she lied to him when he came back and told him she'd adopted the child from another family member.

Seems to me that you might need to go sideways with other family members, and it might also be worth finding out who the mystery father ended up marrying. Did you find them all on the 1901 census?

Searching ancestry records always bring up things like this. We were always told that maternal grandma’s dad was an officer in the British Army stationed in India. But both her parents died and she raised her brothers (1920s) Looking through ancestry records, I think he was actually her step-dad as she was born a few years before he married her mum. It looks like he abandoned his family as soon as his wife died and he actually died in the 1960s.

One possibility is that she had actually left the husband for a while and hoped to stay with the father of the baby. They then had the child baptised together. The child might still have her surname as that was her name since she was married and actually you don't know what surname the child would have been going by at that point as they wouldn't have recorded that on the birth certificate anyway. Maybe she was with the father for a little while and then that broke up or something happened to him and she went back to her husband. It's a shame it all seems have to have taken place between censuses!

In terms of what the son put on his marriage certificate, he might have known, but not wanted to admit to everyone else he had a different father. My GGGrandfather was illegitimate and he used his grandfather's name and occupation on his marriage certificate.

So, she must have stayed married to him until he died, despite other man fathering her baby.

Not necessarily, divorce wasn't common then, especially not for working classes. She may have even lived with the 2nd husband, only able to marry when the 1st died.

What denomination was the baptism
Is the baptism soon after birth, or a late one

At one time it was a legal requirement for a mother to name the father in baptism records, though I think this would have been before your record

@Flaxmeadow

What denomination was the baptism Is the baptism soon after birth, or a late one

At one time it was a legal requirement for a mother to name the father in baptism records, though I think this would have been before your record

It was a Roman Catholic baptism. The birth was in April 1893 and I think the baptism was in July of same year.

It's interesting that it was a Roman Catholic baptism. Were the parents Catholic as well?

@Saker

It's interesting that it was a Roman Catholic baptism. Were the parents Catholic as well?

The mother (my GGG) is buried in the Roman Catholic section of the cemetery.. No idea about the father or any background to him. No idea of mother's religious observance but I know she married in the same RC church as the one were the baptism took place.