A couple of weeks ago, as I was piecing together an ancestral family from the Plymouth area, I came across a son from a marriage that was listed as "Richard Page Base son of Ann Saunders and ?" At first, I couldn't make out the "e" on the end of "Base", and I thought perhaps it was an abbreviation of "Baptized" or "B*stard". But then as I continued going through later entries in the registry, I started seeing a lot more of the same word, more legibly written as "Base". These entries either only listed the mother as the parent, or the mother and a father with a different surname. So at this point I have conclusively decided that Richard Page was indeed an illegitimate child from an extra-marital relationship. The interesting thing is that this son came along after 4 previous siblings, and 3 other siblings proceeded him, all through Ann's husband, Philip Saunders. So he obviously knew of the affair and stayed with her. Kudos to him.  Anyway, that's all mostly irrelevant information. What I'm interested in knowing is if "Page" would possibly be Richard's biological father's surname? Would it have been customary to list the illicit father's surname like this, or would it more likely have been a middle name? I found a marriage of a Richard Page in the same parish roughly 20 years later, but no Richard Page Saunders. Opinions? Thank you, Blaine Sanders

Blaine, Base or Baseborn is used by some clergy to denote illegitimacy. Mothers sometimes used the father's surname as a middle name to show a family connection. Middle names were also used for legitimate births to show a possible interest in an inheritance. Paul -----Original Message----- From: devon-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:devon-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Blaine Sanders Sent: 04 December 2013 16:14 To: devon@rootsweb.com Subject: [DEV] Baptized as "Base" son/daughter A couple of weeks ago, as I was piecing together an ancestral family from the Plymouth area, I came across a son from a marriage that was listed as "Richard Page Base son of Ann Saunders and ?" At first, I couldn't make out the "e" on the end of "Base", and I thought perhaps it was an abbreviation of "Baptized" or "B*stard". But then as I continued going through later entries in the registry, I started seeing a lot more of the same word, more legibly written as "Base". These entries either only listed the mother as the parent, or the mother and a father with a different surname. So at this point I have conclusively decided that Richard Page was indeed an illegitimate child from an extra-marital relationship. The interesting thing is that this son came along after 4 previous siblings, and 3 other siblings proceeded him, all through Ann's husband, Philip Saunders. So he obviously knew of the affair and stayed with her. Kudos to him.  Anyway, that's all mostly irrelevant information. What I'm interested in knowing is if "Page" would possibly be Richard's biological father's surname? Would it have been customary to list the illicit father's surname like this, or would it more likely have been a middle name? I found a marriage of a Richard Page in the same parish roughly 20 years later, but no Richard Page Saunders. Opinions? Thank you, Blaine Sanders ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon ( http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/ ) and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/DEVON/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DEVON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<snipped>> Would it have been customary to list the illicit father's surname like this, or would it more likely have been a middle name? <<snipped>> My impression is that *generally* children's surnames on baptisms go by default, and hence the full name *implied* was "Richard Page Saunders". Again, *generally* the illegitimate child has the mother's surname - as they are "nobody's child" in some views, it would be illogical to assign a surname from a father who is unknown. The very fact that the father's name is "?" suggests either ignorance of the father's name or a profound reluctance to use it. It is therefore unlikely that the parish clerk would have contradicted those views by suddenly putting the father's surname in. <<snipped>> What I'm interested in knowing is if "Page" would possibly be Richard's biological father's surname? <<snipped>> Possibly - but it could also be the name of someone who looked after her during her pregnancy - her husband's view at the time might not have been so relaxed. <<snipped>> I found a marriage of a Richard Page in the same parish roughly 20 years later, but no Richard Page Saunders. <<snipped>> Bear in mind that the baptised name might be discarded later on, so the child might have been "officially" RPS to start with but used "RP" later on. There is considerable supposition in all this, with lots of use of weasel words like "generally". In many cases we can only guess at the true meaning of what is written there. So long as we understand these are guesses and do not use them as "proof", then that's fine. Certainly I see no proof here of the child's name or parentage. Well, except for the mother! Adrian B

May be wrong, but I thought a child born to a married woman was legally not regarded as illegitimate, but as a child of the marriage, ie of the husband, regardless of knowledge of the true paternity. Could this child have been born before the marriage, but not baptised until much later? Robyn On 5/12/2013 3:14 AM, Blaine Sanders wrote: > A couple of weeks ago, as I was piecing together an ancestral family from the Plymouth area, I came across a son from a marriage that was listed as "Richard Page Base son of Ann Saunders and ?" > > At first, I couldn't make out the "e" on the end of "Base", and I thought perhaps it was an abbreviation of "Baptized" or "B*stard". But then as I continued going through later entries in the registry, I started seeing a lot more of the same word, more legibly written as "Base". These entries either only listed the mother as the parent, or the mother and a father with a different surname. > > So at this point I have conclusively decided that Richard Page was indeed an illegitimate child from an extra-marital relationship. The interesting thing is that this son came along after 4 previous siblings, and 3 other siblings proceeded him, all through Ann's husband, Philip Saunders. So he obviously knew of the affair and stayed with her. Kudos to him. > > Anyway, that's all mostly irrelevant information. What I'm interested in knowing is if "Page" would possibly be Richard's biological father's surname? Would it have been customary to list the illicit father's surname like this, or would it more likely have been a middle name? I found a marriage of a Richard Page in the same parish roughly 20 years later, but no Richard Page Saunders. > > Opinions? > > Thank you, > Blaine Sanders > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > ( http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/ ) > and > the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) > List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/DEVON/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DEVON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi, you don`t say where you " came across " this information . Sanders/Saunders is a most populous Devon name and perhaps this is another Saunders ? it seems unlikely that a family would choose one child out of 8 , to highlight as being illegitimate . . I would try find out more before deciding that Ann the wife of Philip had an " affair " . And follow up Joy`s lead with the 1813 marriage of Richard Page Saunders . life is hard . soften it with a cat \\\=^..^=/// ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blaine Sanders" <utvairs@yahoo.com> To: <devon@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:14 PM Subject: [DEV] Baptized as "Base" son/daughter A couple of weeks ago, as I was piecing together an ancestral family from the Plymouth area, I came across a son from a marriage that was listed as "Richard Page Base son of Ann Saunders and ?" At first, I couldn't make out the "e" on the end of "Base", and I thought perhaps it was an abbreviation of "Baptized" or "B*stard". But then as I continued going through later entries in the registry, I started seeing a lot more of the same word, more legibly written as "Base". These entries either only listed the mother as the parent, or the mother and a father with a different surname. So at this point I have conclusively decided that Richard Page was indeed an illegitimate child from an extra-marital relationship. The interesting thing is that this son came along after 4 previous siblings, and 3 other siblings proceeded him, all through Ann's husband, Philip Saunders. So he obviously knew of the affair and stayed with her. Kudos to him. Anyway, that's all mostly irrelevant information. What I'm interested in knowing is if "Page" would possibly be Richard's biological father's surname? Would it have been customary to list the illicit father's surname like this, or would it more likely have been a middle name? I found a marriage of a Richard Page in the same parish roughly 20 years later, but no Richard Page Saunders. Opinions? Thank you, Blaine Sanders ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon ( http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/ ) and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/DEVON/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DEVON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message