Hmmm... haven't seen that very often myself Nivard :) Most PRs I've seen have no ministerial comments at all. Depended on the minister I'd guess. All part of the secret & lies for him not to say anything when the child was born 'early'. Celia Renshaw in Sheffield UK On 4 June 2017 at 13:20, Nivard Ovington via DERBYSGEN < [email protected]> wrote: > > > But if that was the case, the vicar is very likely to record that in the > baptism > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 04-Jun-17 1:16 PM, Celia Renshaw via DERBYSGEN wrote: > >> Yes, and I've also read that once a couple were 'handfast' with an >> expected >> marriage date it was often completely acceptable for sex to happen, >> thereby >> explaining many 'early births'. That in fact a proof that the bride was >> fertile was acceptable all round. Everyone kept quiet about pre-wedlock >> sex >> though, secrets, lies, shame and stigma appearing to be order of the day >> for centuries. >> >> Celia Renshaw >> in Sheffield UK >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

But if that was the case, the vicar is very likely to record that in the baptism Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 04-Jun-17 1:16 PM, Celia Renshaw via DERBYSGEN wrote: > Yes, and I've also read that once a couple were 'handfast' with an expected > marriage date it was often completely acceptable for sex to happen, thereby > explaining many 'early births'. That in fact a proof that the bride was > fertile was acceptable all round. Everyone kept quiet about pre-wedlock sex > though, secrets, lies, shame and stigma appearing to be order of the day > for centuries. > > Celia Renshaw > in Sheffield UK

Yes, and I've also read that once a couple were 'handfast' with an expected marriage date it was often completely acceptable for sex to happen, thereby explaining many 'early births'. That in fact a proof that the bride was fertile was acceptable all round. Everyone kept quiet about pre-wedlock sex though, secrets, lies, shame and stigma appearing to be order of the day for centuries. Celia Renshaw in Sheffield UK On 4 June 2017 at 13:10, carole williams via DERBYSGEN < [email protected]> wrote: > Prof Rebecca Probert's book on marriage covers this aspect I think. She > asserts that often parents married after the first child was born as social > pressure to be able to reproduce was quite intense. > (sorry can't quickly recall the book title) > > Carole > Sent from my iPad > > > On 4 Jun 2017, at 10:51, Nicholas.Shorthose--- via DERBYSGEN < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > I find this a fascinating thread , having a couple of "blanks" or > mismatches between birth and marriage cert father's details in my tree. > > Is any anywhere of academic research on illegitimacy in C18-19s ? > > > > Nicholas Shorthose > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected] > rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington via DERBYSGEN > > Sent: 04 June 2017 10:17 > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named > > > > As others have said, illegitimacy is the most likely reason > > > > But have you checked the original parish register entry? > > > > Vicars sometimes entered a note in the margin > > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > >> On 03-Jun-17 3:15 PM, Joan M via DERBYSGEN wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father > >> wouldn't be named? > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Joan > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Prof Rebecca Probert's book on marriage covers this aspect I think. She asserts that often parents married after the first child was born as social pressure to be able to reproduce was quite intense. (sorry can't quickly recall the book title) Carole Sent from my iPad > On 4 Jun 2017, at 10:51, Nicholas.Shorthose--- via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> wrote: > > I find this a fascinating thread , having a couple of "blanks" or mismatches between birth and marriage cert father's details in my tree. > Is any anywhere of academic research on illegitimacy in C18-19s ? > > Nicholas Shorthose > > -----Original Message----- > From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington via DERBYSGEN > Sent: 04 June 2017 10:17 > To: [email protected] > Cc: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named > > As others have said, illegitimacy is the most likely reason > > But have you checked the original parish register entry? > > Vicars sometimes entered a note in the margin > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > >> On 03-Jun-17 3:15 PM, Joan M via DERBYSGEN wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father >> wouldn't be named? >> >> Thanks >> >> Joan > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Fascinating story. Sometimes women had to be persistent to get what they wanted! In my family a Mildred Dalton had an illegitimate child in 1827 who she named Woods- so Woods Dalton. However, less than 3 months later, she married a George Woods. I think we can guess who the father was, and only wonder at the effect of her choice of name for her son. Was she trying to embarrass him into 'doing the decent thing'? There is no comment on the register about him being illegitimate, or mention of the father's name. But although George and Mildred then went on to have at least 10 more legitimate children, Woods kept to his original surname. I guess being called Woods Woods would have been difficult. Margaret On 04/06/2017 11:11, Liz via DERBYSGEN wrote: Interesting Margaret. My mother-in-law's family are a case in point. It took me a long time to sort out as they were Irish Catholics (in England) and everything was in Latin! Starting in 1904. The young Irish girl gave birth to a boy. She was a staunch Catholic so took the child to church to have him baptised. I knew the boy concerned. He grew up with the surname that the other 10 children had, however he was illegitimate but he had his father's name as a middle name. Her mother was not impressed. The girl wanted to marry the father of her child but (a) he was a stoker on ships going around the world and (b) he was not Catholic. So, her mother came up with a solution. There was a young man who was a lodger (also a sailor) and he needed a wife to look respectable - was he gay? They married and he then vanished never to be seen again. So, a second child was born and then a third. These two children had the father's name as a middle name and the husband's name as a surname!!! Hope you are following me. When she had them baptised (having been to church and confessed her sins) the priest wrote in the baptism register (in Latin) that the child was the child of XXX but the husband was YYY. She was at some stage excommunicated. She continued to produce children. The next 3 were girls. To Register these children as the children of her "partner" he had to be with her to register them in his name. Again, the church continued to make the point that they were the children of XXX even though the husband was YYY. After 6 children had been born and the husband had been "missing presumed dead" for at least 7 years, the couple married and had 5 more children. As it was the Catholic church full details had been noted in the church register but would a Parish Church make such notes? How about the occasions when it was known that a baby was the product of a child of the family but registered and brought up as the child of the grandmother? How often have we seen women over 50 purporting to be the mother of a child? Liz -----Original Message----- From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Margaret Siudek via DERBYSGEN Sent: 04 June 2017 10:15 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Margaret Siudek Subject: Re: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named Liz is most probably right but, in legal terms, isn't a child born to a married couple legitimate, unless there's proof to the contrary? I know that's easy now with DNA testing, but it would have been harder in the past. Could a vicar or registrar just decide he didn't believe the baby was the child of the husband? Margaret On 04/06/2017 09:45, Liz via DERBYSGEN wrote: The vicar went off to wet the baby's head and when it came to fill in the details he had forgotten the dad's name!!! It could also be that the husband was dead and the vicar thought the father was a different person in the village/town or the father was absent abroad. Liz -----Original Message----- From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joan M via DERBYSGEN Sent: 03 June 2017 15:15 To: 'Derbyshire genealogy' Cc: Joan M Subject: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named Hi, Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father wouldn't be named? Thanks Joan ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Interesting Margaret. My mother-in-law's family are a case in point. It took me a long time to sort out as they were Irish Catholics (in England) and everything was in Latin! Starting in 1904. The young Irish girl gave birth to a boy. She was a staunch Catholic so took the child to church to have him baptised. I knew the boy concerned. He grew up with the surname that the other 10 children had, however he was illegitimate but he had his father's name as a middle name. Her mother was not impressed. The girl wanted to marry the father of her child but (a) he was a stoker on ships going around the world and (b) he was not Catholic. So, her mother came up with a solution. There was a young man who was a lodger (also a sailor) and he needed a wife to look respectable - was he gay? They married and he then vanished never to be seen again. So, a second child was born and then a third. These two children had the father's name as a middle name and the husband's name as a surname!!! Hope you are following me. When she had them baptised (having been to church and confessed her sins) the priest wrote in the baptism register (in Latin) that the child was the child of XXX but the husband was YYY. She was at some stage excommunicated. She continued to produce children. The next 3 were girls. To Register these children as the children of her "partner" he had to be with her to register them in his name. Again, the church continued to make the point that they were the children of XXX even though the husband was YYY. After 6 children had been born and the husband had been "missing presumed dead" for at least 7 years, the couple married and had 5 more children. As it was the Catholic church full details had been noted in the church register but would a Parish Church make such notes? How about the occasions when it was known that a baby was the product of a child of the family but registered and brought up as the child of the grandmother? How often have we seen women over 50 purporting to be the mother of a child? Liz -----Original Message----- From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Margaret Siudek via DERBYSGEN Sent: 04 June 2017 10:15 To: [email protected] Cc: Margaret Siudek Subject: Re: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named Liz is most probably right but, in legal terms, isn't a child born to a married couple legitimate, unless there's proof to the contrary? I know that's easy now with DNA testing, but it would have been harder in the past. Could a vicar or registrar just decide he didn't believe the baby was the child of the husband? Margaret On 04/06/2017 09:45, Liz via DERBYSGEN wrote: The vicar went off to wet the baby's head and when it came to fill in the details he had forgotten the dad's name!!! It could also be that the husband was dead and the vicar thought the father was a different person in the village/town or the father was absent abroad. Liz -----Original Message----- From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joan M via DERBYSGEN Sent: 03 June 2017 15:15 To: 'Derbyshire genealogy' Cc: Joan M Subject: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named Hi, Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father wouldn't be named? Thanks Joan ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Had the case been a married woman had the child of someone other than the husband, the vicar is very likely to have made that known in one way or another I do not think the lack of fathers name is likely to be anything other than an illegitimate child unless there is a note or reason recorded Apart from anything else, the child could/would be dependant on the parish and they were keen to apportion blame if at all possible to enable them to follow up and get the father to pay for his child Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 04-Jun-17 10:14 AM, Margaret Siudek via DERBYSGEN wrote: > Liz is most probably right but, in legal terms, isn't a child born to a married couple legitimate, unless there's proof to the contrary? I know that's easy now with DNA testing, but it would have been harder in the past. Could a vicar or registrar just decide he didn't believe the baby was the child of the husband? > > Margaret

If the baby was born a tad longer than 9 months after the husband had been last seen around.... vicars did express doubts, or leave a father's name out, I've seen that in other registers. Some ministers seemed to regard the parish register as their personal journal and put whatever they wanted to put, sometimes with all sorts of personal comments on parishioners! Celia Renshaw in Sheffield UK On 4 June 2017 at 10:14, Margaret Siudek via DERBYSGEN < [email protected]> wrote: > Liz is most probably right but, in legal terms, isn't a child born to a > married couple legitimate, unless there's proof to the contrary? I know > that's easy now with DNA testing, but it would have been harder in the > past. Could a vicar or registrar just decide he didn't believe the baby was > the child of the husband? > > Margaret > > On 04/06/2017 09:45, Liz via DERBYSGEN wrote: > > The vicar went off to wet the baby's head and when it came to fill in the > details he had forgotten the dad's name!!! It could also be that the > husband was dead and the vicar thought the father was a different person in > the village/town or the father was absent abroad. > > Liz > > -----Original Message----- > From: DERBYSGEN > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Joan M via DERBYSGEN > Sent: 03 June 2017 15:15 > To: 'Derbyshire genealogy' > Cc: Joan M > Subject: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named > > Hi, > > Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father wouldn't > be named? > > Thanks > > Joan > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

As others have said, illegitimacy is the most likely reason But have you checked the original parish register entry? Vicars sometimes entered a note in the margin Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 03-Jun-17 3:15 PM, Joan M via DERBYSGEN wrote: > Hi, > > Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father wouldn't > be named? > > Thanks > > Joan

Ancestral Trails by Mark Herber- a large tome on family history, says the rate of illegitimacy between 1837 and 1965 was 4-7%. I assume that is from the percentage of fathers unnamed at birth registration. He says it as about 2% in the 18th century. Both of these figures assume that a named father is the actual father, of course. In the search for the ancestors of Richard 3rd, there were questions raised about the royal blood-line, when the researchers tried to find a living descendant of his family to prove the identity of the skeleton... The press then claimed there was a mismatch at some point in the royal line, so present day royals couldn't be used... A geneticist then said that "The fact that we do not find a match between the living male-line relatives and the skeletal remains is not at all surprising to me. We knew from work that I, and others, have carried out in the past that the incidence of false-paternity, where the biological father is not the supposed father, is historically in the region of 1-2 per cent per generation". In fact they did find a descendant of Richard 3rd's sister, as I recall, who was a match. Margaret On 04/06/2017 10:50, Nicholas.Shorthose--- via DERBYSGEN wrote: I find this a fascinating thread , having a couple of "blanks" or mismatches between birth and marriage cert father's details in my tree. Is any anywhere of academic research on illegitimacy in C18-19s ? Nicholas Shorthose -----Original Message----- From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington via DERBYSGEN Sent: 04 June 2017 10:17 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named As others have said, illegitimacy is the most likely reason But have you checked the original parish register entry? Vicars sometimes entered a note in the margin Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 03-Jun-17 3:15 PM, Joan M via DERBYSGEN wrote: Hi, Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father wouldn't be named? Thanks Joan ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, A cousin, myself and friend have just been looking at such a case which has remained a family secret since 1865. Two stories were handed down, but we now think the answer may lie with two very interesting and a little odd letters that were held on to by my gt.grandmother's half sister and handed down to cousin. They were written in 1858 when the young lass who received them was just ten years old. We do know now who the writer was and since his occupation took him back from London to the north-east again some 8 years later when she was still only 15 or 16, it is a possibility that there was some liaison which resulted in the pregnancy and so kept quiet because of his standing in the community, and possibly also to spare his wife some sorrow. The two stories are quite different and that is one reason why we think it was somebody else, the writer of the letters. Malcolm

Yep, all of that. Or the register-keeper couldn't read what the vic had written on his little slips of paper and was going to ask the vic, so as to fill it in later, only didn't. Or he'd had a drop too much mulled-wine and just made a mistake. Somebody knocked on his door & interrupted him at that moment (like the man from Porlock), and he forgot to finish that entry. A puff of air from the open window blew the vicar's slip into the fire..... we could go on for ever. But illegitimacy seems the obvious most likely answer, and mum being a widow or deserted the next most likely I think. Celia Renshaw in Sheffield UK On 4 June 2017 at 09:45, Liz via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> wrote: > The vicar went off to wet the baby's head and when it came to fill in the > details he had forgotten the dad's name!!! It could also be that the > husband was dead and the vicar thought the father was a different person in > the village/town or the father was absent abroad. > > Liz > > -----Original Message----- > From: DERBYSGEN > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Joan M via DERBYSGEN > Sent: 03 June 2017 15:15 > To: 'Derbyshire genealogy' > Cc: Joan M > Subject: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named > > Hi, > > Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father wouldn't > be named? > > Thanks > > Joan > >

I find this a fascinating thread , having a couple of "blanks" or mismatches between birth and marriage cert father's details in my tree. Is any anywhere of academic research on illegitimacy in C18-19s ? Nicholas Shorthose -----Original Message----- From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington via DERBYSGEN Sent: 04 June 2017 10:17 To: [email protected] Cc: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named As others have said, illegitimacy is the most likely reason But have you checked the original parish register entry? Vicars sometimes entered a note in the margin Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 03-Jun-17 3:15 PM, Joan M via DERBYSGEN wrote: > Hi, > > Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father > wouldn't be named? > > Thanks > > Joan ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The vicar went off to wet the baby's head and when it came to fill in the details he had forgotten the dad's name!!! It could also be that the husband was dead and the vicar thought the father was a different person in the village/town or the father was absent abroad. Liz -----Original Message----- From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joan M via DERBYSGEN Sent: 03 June 2017 15:15 To: 'Derbyshire genealogy' Cc: Joan M Subject: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named Hi, Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father wouldn't be named? Thanks Joan ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com

Liz is most probably right but, in legal terms, isn't a child born to a married couple legitimate, unless there's proof to the contrary? I know that's easy now with DNA testing, but it would have been harder in the past. Could a vicar or registrar just decide he didn't believe the baby was the child of the husband? Margaret On 04/06/2017 09:45, Liz via DERBYSGEN wrote: The vicar went off to wet the baby's head and when it came to fill in the details he had forgotten the dad's name!!! It could also be that the husband was dead and the vicar thought the father was a different person in the village/town or the father was absent abroad. Liz -----Original Message----- From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joan M via DERBYSGEN Sent: 03 June 2017 15:15 To: 'Derbyshire genealogy' Cc: Joan M Subject: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named Hi, Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father wouldn't be named? Thanks Joan ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

My Grandfather Arthur Jacobs was not named in the government birth records but was listed by name and as a soldier in my mothers Oswestry baptismal record. I assumed he was fast on his bike. I have not found any other records about him. :)) Mike Morris   Toronto Canada From: stuart <[email protected]> To: Mike Morris <[email protected]>; Derbyshire genealogy <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named Just a suggestion, could the father have possibly been killed in a mining accident or in warfare before babe was born, or run off with the lodger!!!!!!!

Just a suggestion, could the father have possibly been killed in a mining accident or in warfare before babe was born, or run off with the lodger!!!!!!! > On 3 Jun 2017, at 19:55, Mike Morris via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Maybe they didn't know who the father was :)) > Mike Morris Toronto Canada > > From: Joan M via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> > To: 'Derbyshire genealogy' <[email protected]> > Cc: Joan M <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 10:16 AM > > Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father wouldn't > be named? (snip) > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Surely that is the same as illegitimacy! -----Original Message----- From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Morris via DERBYSGEN Sent: 03 June 2017 19:55 To: Derbyshire genealogy <[email protected]> Cc: Mike Morris <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DBY] Baptisms where father isn't named Maybe they didn't know who the father was   :)) Mike Morris Toronto Canada From: Joan M via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> To: 'Derbyshire genealogy' <[email protected]> Cc: Joan M <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 10:16 AM   Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father wouldn't be named? (snip) ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Maybe they didn't know who the father was   :)) Mike Morris Toronto Canada From: Joan M via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> To: 'Derbyshire genealogy' <[email protected]> Cc: Joan M <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 10:16 AM   Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father wouldn't be named? (snip)

Hi, Apart from illegitimacy, is there any other reason that the father wouldn't be named? Thanks Joan