I was once told, by a solicitor, decades ago, that the reason for the wording was it proved the father acknowledged the child was his and could therefore not accuse his Lady of philandering! Legally speaking a child born to a married woman is "always" presumed to be her husband's offspring, he or she may know different, but in the case of a newspaper announcement he was in fact publicly acknowledging his wife's faithfullness. Good one! Ems On 27 August 2011 21:35, Nivard Ovington <ovington1@sky.com> wrote: > Yes as is more often the way > > I always find it amusing that births were usually announced as follows > > > The Morning Post (London, England), Sunday, December 29, 1823 > > BIRTHS - On the 23rd inst. at Newlands, near Stanstead, Herts, the Lady of James Haylock, Esq, of a > daughter. > > > > You would think having done most of the hard work (if not all of it) she may have got a mention > wouldn't you <g> > > For posterity the Lady was Martha Casburn HAYLOCK > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > And poor old Mrs Brightridge doesn't even get a name... > > Caroline > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > This mailing list works in parallel with the London surname interest list on the web at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/london.html .  Check for matching interests and add your own ! > > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: LONDON-admin@rootsweb.com > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LONDON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >