Roy makes a very good point here. Genealogists always have to bear in mind that there is no argument as to who the mother of the baby is, but the father? Yes, well . . . John Smith - maybe! And also, it may well be "A child of John Smith" but the mother may have been the housemaid! Stan NZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> > It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the vicar in the case above had > very > little interest in what the child of an ag lab, or whatever, was called > and > couldn't be bothered to record it. How often have we seen baptismal and > burial entries such as "A child of John Smith", very often with the > mother > not even mentioned?

Just catching up on some old messages so apologies for resurrecting an old thread! I have to disagree with the statement "Genealogists always have to bear in mind that there is no argument as to who the mother of the baby is". There are no certainties in genealogy - only probabilities! You can never be sure who the mother is because in some cases a mother would claim her daughter's illegitimate child as her own to protect the family honour and protect the daughter's marriageability (is there such a word?!?). In my own family there is a similar example. Some are still alive so there are no names! GC had a sister KC. Shortly after GC married, her sister KC became pregnant with an illegitimate child. This was in 1950's Dublin. To prevent her sister becoming a "Magdalene Girl" both GC and KC kept out of public view until after the birth. The child was registered as the son of GC with her husband as the father. He was raised as their own son. Brian Richerby Guiseley, UK ----- Original Message ----- From: "stan bayne" <abycat@xtra.co.nz> To: <NOTTSGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [NTT] (NTT) BAPTISM MYSTERY IN DENBY > Roy makes a very good point here. Genealogists always have to bear in > mind that there is no argument as to who the mother of the baby is, but > the > father? Yes, well . . . John Smith - maybe! And also, it may well be > "A > child of John Smith" but the mother may have been the housemaid! > > Stan > NZ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> >> It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the vicar in the case above had >> very >> little interest in what the child of an ag lab, or whatever, was called >> and >> couldn't be bothered to record it. How often have we seen baptismal and >> burial entries such as "A child of John Smith", very often with the >> mother >> not even mentioned? > > > > Notts Surname List > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/notts.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NOTTSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I think the point here is that at moment of birth there is no argument as to who the mother is - she is certainly present! But the father? Yes, well . . . Her husband? The milkman? The lodger? The arguments start when the birth is recorded, and as Brian says, the facts can then be "bent" in accordance with the moral standards of the day and the society. So the path of genealogy back through the years can be littered with all kind of scandals. Is there a family which hasn't got a skeleton or two somewhere in their genealogical cupboard? Stan NZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Richerby" <bjr@lineone.net> To: "stan bayne" <abycat@xtra.co.nz>; <NOTTSGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [NTT] (NTT) BAPTISM MYSTERY IN DENBY > Just catching up on some old messages so apologies for resurrecting an > old > thread! > > I have to disagree with the statement "Genealogists always have to bear > in > mind that there is no argument as to who the mother of the baby is". > > There are no certainties in genealogy - only probabilities! > > You can never be sure who the mother is because in some cases a mother > would > claim her daughter's illegitimate child as her own to protect the family > honour and protect the daughter's marriageability (is there such a > word?!?). > > In my own family there is a similar example. > > Some are still alive so there are no names! > > GC had a sister KC. Shortly after GC married, her sister KC became > pregnant with an illegitimate child. This was in 1950's Dublin. To > prevent > her sister becoming a "Magdalene Girl" both GC and KC kept out of public > view until after the birth. The child was registered as the son of GC > with > her husband as the father. He was raised as their own son. > > Brian Richerby > Guiseley, UK > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "stan bayne" <abycat@xtra.co.nz> > To: <NOTTSGEN-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:43 PM > Subject: Re: [NTT] (NTT) BAPTISM MYSTERY IN DENBY > > >> Roy makes a very good point here. Genealogists always have to bear in >> mind that there is no argument as to who the mother of the baby is, but >> the >> father? Yes, well . . . John Smith - maybe! And also, it may well be >> "A >> child of John Smith" but the mother may have been the housemaid! >> >> Stan >> NZ >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Roy Stockdill" <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> >>> It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the vicar in the case above had >>> very >>> little interest in what the child of an ag lab, or whatever, was called >>> and >>> couldn't be bothered to record it. How often have we seen baptismal and >>> burial entries such as "A child of John Smith", very often with the >>> mother >>> not even mentioned? >> >> >> >> Notts Surname List >> >> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/notts.html >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> NOTTSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1853 - Release Date: 17/12/2008 8:31 a.m.