Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anybody find any issues with paternity recently? I was looking for a relative's death certificate and I found one I wasn't related to. But it was a baby. He died at 3 months old of whooping cough (in 1911). He has his mother's maiden name. His father's name was on the death certificate and next to it in parentheses was ("so mother says").
For some reason it made me think of "The Office" ("That's what she said") and I chuckled. But it is serious. I feel sorry for the poor girl. I can only imagine the shame she endured, then to lose the child like that. I can't find anything else on her, so I don't know how it turned out. I found the father in a census record when he was younger and he was born in 1882. So he was about 29 when the kid was born. You don't usually see back then where single people that age had affairs, so I wonder (part of me does) if he was married and she was younger. If she had been married she probably would have said nothing and told her husband he kid was his. But, who can say? Still, it was interesting.
Also, my great-great grandfather's death certificate says he was single. Of course, there was no question about the paternity of his children. My grandfather says he always assumed they were married. They had 8 children. He was 12 years older than her (and died 40 years before her). Still, it seems strange his death certificate would say single when his oldest daughter was 31. Of course, it may have just been a mistake on the death certificate. But it makes you wonder.
Anybody else find any strange paternity claims or cases like that?
Thanks.
Last edited by STLCardsBlues1989; 11-26-2010 at 11:53 PM..
I did find one where a woman had a child, and in the space for the father's name it said "none," as I recall....though in that same county I have seen "bastard" and "illegitimate" used, so maybe it was one of those words.
But more important was the fact that a man's name had been filled in, in parenthesis, later in a different handwriting. I was curious and found that a few months after the birth the couple had married.
I have a 40 plus man who married a sixteen year old girl, but on the wedding registration her age has been upped by two years and his lowered by fifteen. This was in the 1880's. And in the next census they have three young boys, but a daughter several years too old to have been born after the marriage.
On a slightly different note, but related in some ways. My great, great-grandmother had three children who married children of her brother. And the family persisted in using the same given names over and over. The problem is compounded by the fact that her husband's family had traditionally used several of the same given names.
In the beginning I went mad looking for the fathers of some people because of the repeated use of names and the intermarriage.
I cringe at some of the genealogies I see for my family on Ancestry.com, and even one of the standard references for this area has mixed up some of the children assigning them to the wrong family.
Interesting what you found. Plus, obviously you take on genealogy as I do ... it's not just the who begat whom - it's the part about stepping into ancestors' shoes (or even those of strangers of the time period) and trying to feel what they felt thus getting to know whom they were.
As for your great-great grandfather's marital status on his death certificate, yes, it could have been that someone checked a wrong box or put down the wrong letter S instead of M (married) or W (widowed) or D (divorced) OR it could have been on purpose to denote that he was either widowed or divorced prior to his death and therefore "single" in the sense he was no longer married. I feel it all depended on the informant's concept of marital status (simply, a person was single or married to a living person) or if the informant and/or family had a stigma about divorce and wanted to keep that "horrible devastating embarrassing" fact a secret.
Of course in reality divorce is not any of those things, but I do know that for some people in the past it certainly was. I found it in various census records concerning some great grandparent-in-laws. At first they were all on the census together. Then he left her and the children (reason not known), and he shows up on the next census in another state at a boarding house as married while she was on the census with the children and listed as a widow. Ten years later in the next census he was still living in the other state but as single and she and some of the kids still together with her as a widow. Ten years later I cannot find him (cannot confirm, but I think he remarried), but she is listed as divorced.
My take on all this is that perhaps he wanted to move and she didn't and thus they lived apart. Perhaps they were legally separated - neither married nor divorced and with no coding to describe that, perhaps it was easier to just say she was widowed to explain to the public why she had no husband. My strongest thought is maybe their marriage had been annulled - they were Roman Catholics and divorce would have meant excommunication.
If Catholic, it could have been a conundrum to explain marital status if there was an annulled marriage. Couldn't say "single" if there were children, yet couldn't say "married", and certainly couldn't say "divorced".
Of course in reality divorce is not any of those things, but I do know that for some people in the past it certainly was. I found it in various census records concerning some great grandparent-in-laws. At first they were all on the census together. Then he left her and the children (reason not known), and he shows up on the next census in another state at a boarding house as married while she was on the census with the children and listed as a widow. Ten years later in the next census he was still living in the other state but as single and she and some of the kids still together with her as a widow. Ten years later I cannot find him (cannot confirm, but I think he remarried), but she is listed as divorced.
My take on all this is that perhaps he wanted to move and she didn't and thus they lived apart. Perhaps they were legally separated - neither married nor divorced and with no coding to describe that, perhaps it was easier to just say she was widowed to explain to the public why she had no husband. My strongest thought is maybe their marriage had been annulled - they were Roman Catholics and divorce would have meant excommunication.
My grandfather wandered all over the place... and he was working for the family. He had to go where there were jobs. He sent the money home and went back as often as possible.
And Kevxu -- I had a similar thing in my family. About 6 generations of Albert, John, Albert, John, Albert, John... which I am SURE it went on longer but my line finally connected to a daughter not named either one of those names.
I had a tour of duty as an Army Recruiter. Occasionally when we got all the required documentation for a recruit we would find that the recruits "Dad" who had raised him, was not his biological father. Some of the recruits would be upset and others would take a "so what" attitude because his "Dad" was the one in his life and it made no difference. And yes, we always showed the documentation to the recruit to make sure everything was in order.
As in the OP's post, it's kind of ridiculous the way unwed mothers may be treated, as if it doesn't take two to tango.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevxu
I have a 40 plus man who married a sixteen year old girl, but on the wedding registration her age has been upped by two years and his lowered by fifteen. This was in the 1880's. And in the next census they have three young boys, but a daughter several years too old to have been born after the marriage.
Possibly the older girl was his from a prior marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArkansasSlim
I had a tour of duty as an Army Recruiter. Occasionally when we got all the required documentation for a recruit we would find that the recruits "Dad" who had raised him, was not his biological father. Some of the recruits would be upset and others would take a "so what" attitude because his "Dad" was the one in his life and it made no difference. And yes, we always showed the documentation to the recruit to make sure everything was in order.
Yes, it's the dad that matters.
I've wondered if people using some of the new DNA tests for genealogy have unintentionally let the cat out of the bag.
In my quest to discover who I am I've found all kinds of tid-bits and read hundreds of records. But probably one of the oddest was Thomas, the first son of the first Judge John, who according to what I can find - which isn't much- he died at age 33. John's second son was his namesake. The parents allegedly married in Europe whenThomas was 3-years old and the three sailed to the New World shortly thereafter. There is no record of the sailing, no record of their arriva and no record of the un-named mother yet both sons gaved their first daughters the same name - which was alledgedly the name of their mother. There ae at least 6 generations of man named John and Thomas, but nary another mention of the woman who would be their mother. It is one of those niggling puzzles that has always bothered me. There is not even a mention of the mother in the family bible.
Both sons married and had children. I traced the ancestry of their wives. I have gotten nowhere on the ancestry of the immigrant or his wife. I may never find the answer, but, I know I am not alone. This family has been looking for answers for at least 75 years. .
Interesting what you found. Plus, obviously you take on genealogy as I do ... it's not just the who begat whom - it's the part about stepping into ancestors' shoes (or even those of strangers of the time period) and trying to feel what they felt thus getting to know whom they were.
As for your great-great grandfather's marital status on his death certificate, yes, it could have been that someone checked a wrong box or put down the wrong letter S instead of M (married) or W (widowed) or D (divorced) OR it could have been on purpose to denote that he was either widowed or divorced prior to his death and therefore "single" in the sense he was no longer married. I feel it all depended on the informant's concept of marital status (simply, a person was single or married to a living person) or if the informant and/or family had a stigma about divorce and wanted to keep that "horrible devastating embarrassing" fact a secret.
Of course in reality divorce is not any of those things, but I do know that for some people in the past it certainly was. I found it in various census records concerning some great grandparent-in-laws. At first they were all on the census together. Then he left her and the children (reason not known), and he shows up on the next census in another state at a boarding house as married while she was on the census with the children and listed as a widow. Ten years later in the next census he was still living in the other state but as single and she and some of the kids still together with her as a widow. Ten years later I cannot find him (cannot confirm, but I think he remarried), but she is listed as divorced.
My take on all this is that perhaps he wanted to move and she didn't and thus they lived apart. Perhaps they were legally separated - neither married nor divorced and with no coding to describe that, perhaps it was easier to just say she was widowed to explain to the public why she had no husband. My strongest thought is maybe their marriage had been annulled - they were Roman Catholics and divorce would have meant excommunication.
If Catholic, it could have been a conundrum to explain marital status if there was an annulled marriage. Couldn't say "single" if there were children, yet couldn't say "married", and certainly couldn't say "divorced".
I thought it being marked wrong, but the word "single" was written out (the other options were divorced and widowed). On top of that, his "wife" was still alive, as were their 8 children (ages 12-31).
It is possible that they had separated. There was no term for separated on the death certificate, but it seems unlikely given testimony from my grandfather (their grandson) and the young ages of their children. They did stop having their children when she was 37. That seems unusual because women back then generally had children until menopause, being that they had no birth control. But there may be another reason for that. It would be helpful if I had the 1920 census for them (he died in 1921), but I do not.
His death certificate says his wife's maiden name and then her married name is squeezed in on the end of it, like it was an after thought. It's rare (from my experience) that a married man's death certificate lists his wife's maiden name. A lot of them don't.
Actually, there are two pages to the death certificate. The second page just says "S." next to marital status and lists no wife. There is no space on the death certificate that asks for the informant's name.
As my grandfather said, maybe they never bothered to get married. She had her first child 2 months before her 19th birthday, when he was almost 31. So there was a fair amount of gap there.
I'm pretty sure they were protestant. So far I haven't found any Catholics on my family tree and all my living relatives are Protestant (mostly Pentecostal).
If I could find an obituary that may help, but they don't usually divulge dirty secrets.
My grandfather wandered all over the place... and he was working for the family. He had to go where there were jobs. He sent the money home and went back as often as possible.
And Kevxu -- I had a similar thing in my family. About 6 generations of Albert, John, Albert, John, Albert, John... which I am SURE it went on longer but my line finally connected to a daughter not named either one of those names.
I have the opposite problem. I have Menasia, Zalma, Alpha, Parthena (called Catherine in one census), Vina (Viney), Parmelia, Octa, Nada (Nadine). A few other names are hard to decipher on census records, such as Werley. There's Truston, Cannon, Ebenezer, and Ocea, Alameda, Doctor (his name was Doctor, given to him a birth), Paralee, Jenks, and Ignatius. I have first and middle names flipped around and spelled different ways. I have last names that changed three or four times between generations. They are hard to track.
Of course, some of my great- and great-great grandparents couldn't read, so it's not a surprise they couldn't spell their own names. Census takers must have had a time with them.
As in the OP's post, it's kind of ridiculous the way unwed mothers may be treated, as if it doesn't take two to tango.
Possibly the older girl was his from a prior marriage.
Alas, he was a bachelor.
But there is more to the story than I thought necessary to write. Her parents were from his area of Canada, and she had been left with an aunt in New York State by her father at around age five. She did return to Canada to visit relatives evidently, but was a servant girl in NYS by age 13.
I can only wonder if on one of those visits back to Canada she didn't have an "encounter" with my relative, or perhaps she already had an illegitimate child and it made no difference to him.
It is also odd how her parents abandoned her with an aunt at age 5, when they did migrate to the Midwest with a few of her siblings and settle down. Puzzling, especially when her aunt already had three children of her own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
