In a message dated 4/15/01 11:07:50 PM, sacsmith@usunwired.net writes: << WHOA, HOSS!!! What in the world do you mean when you say "Today 'natural daughter' means an illegitimate child"??? Natural child is a biological child. Biological as opposed to adopted. NATURAL. >> OK, maybe not TODAY. I don't know; that's why I'm asking. Other genealogists have told me that the term has been commonly used more recently for the illegitimate child as opposed to "lawful"--or legitimate--child. The child in question was born in 1802 and reared by her childless uncle and aunt. In the aunt's will and in subsequent legal papers filed by the uncle, her father is identified and she bore his name. In 1827, after her first husband died, her father--"the grandfather"-- was asked to a family meeting in behalf of her minor child. For many years, names of her half-brothers appear in her legal papers and family letters. Apparently her father had no will, and there is no probate or succession on file in the West Feliciana courthouse until after the death of wife #3 (or #2?), when only her children are provided for in the succession. However, other parish records indicate that his children by wife #2 (or #1?) had already received substantial property from their father. In other Louisiana probates of the era that I've seen, when there was no will the family meeting was designed to insure that minor children received their share of their deceased parent's part of community, as well as separate property, even--perhaps especially--if the surviving spouse remarried. This does not appear to have happened in the case of this child. Why? because she was born during the Spanish era or because she was illegitimate? From 1851 succession papers, we know she had only the separate property she inherited from her first husband. As to her mother, there is no record of a marriage in the Natchez records or the St. Joseph's church records of Baton Rouge. Where else should I look? In fact, I have found no record of anyone with her name. I have found no documentation in Natchez or West Feliciana records that this woman existed or that the father was married prior to his documented 1807 marriage. Obviously, there was a woman somewhere; but how would I even begin to search for and identify her? Thanks again. E. W. Prichard

Hi E. W. I can't find your original post here...You're saying that you found her listed as a "natural" child of John Doe in some legal papers, like a will or something, for her uncle or aunt? If so, I still think it means "biological", probably in this case to clarify that she was not the biological daughter of the uncle and aunt. And, since her dad was still alive, it looks like she was not legally adopted. That may have been another reason for stating it that way. I think it's 50/50 as to whether she was legitimate. It's possible that her father had a mistress and that's where she came from. If that's the case, it could be really hard, if not impossible, to find the mom. Especially since the dad left no will. As for finding a marriage record, in doing my long-distance research, I have depended on the LA Records books by Hebert, though you must check for various spellings of the names--French priests spelled English words differently. The names are in alphabetical order by surname, and the location and nature of the record given. I sure hope someone else has some ideas on this one, for documentation on the mom. Jan Garland > > In a message dated 4/15/01 11:07:50 PM, sacsmith@usunwired.net writes: > > << WHOA, HOSS!!! What in the world do you mean when you say "Today 'natural > > daughter' means an illegitimate child"??? Natural child is a biological > > child. Biological as opposed to adopted. NATURAL. >> > > OK, maybe not TODAY. I don't know; that's why I'm asking. Other genealogists > have told me that the term has been commonly used more recently for the > illegitimate child as opposed to "lawful"--or legitimate--child. > > The child in question was born in 1802 and reared by her childless uncle and > aunt. In the aunt's will and in subsequent legal papers filed by the uncle, > her father is identified and she bore his name. In 1827, after her first > husband died, her father--"the grandfather"-- was asked to a family meeting > in behalf of her minor child. For many years, names of her half-brothers > appear in her legal papers and family letters. > > Apparently her father had no will, and there is no probate or succession on > file in the West Feliciana courthouse until after the death of wife #3 (or > #2?), when only her children are provided for in the succession. However, > other parish records indicate that his children by wife #2 (or #1?) had > already received substantial property from their father. > > In other Louisiana probates of the era that I've seen, when there was no will > the family meeting was designed to insure that minor children received their > share of their deceased parent's part of community, as well as separate > property, even--perhaps especially--if the surviving spouse remarried. This > does not appear to have happened in the case of this child. Why? because she > was born during the Spanish era or because she was illegitimate? From 1851 > succession papers, we know she had only the separate property she inherited > from her first husband. > > As to her mother, there is no record of a marriage in the Natchez records or > the St. Joseph's church records of Baton Rouge. Where else should I look? In > fact, I have found no record of anyone with her name. I have found no > documentation in Natchez or West Feliciana records that this woman existed or > that the father was married prior to his documented 1807 marriage. Obviously, > there was a woman somewhere; but how would I even begin to search for and > identify her? > > Thanks again. E. W. Prichard >