Genealogy Chat

I am trying to trace the father of my grandfather and some of his siblings. His mother moved from Stafford to Manchester to get married in 1901 and had a daughter a few months later. A few years later she moved back to Stafford and had a son. Both of these children have their mother and fathers name on their birth certificates.

My great grandmother later lived with another man whom I suspect is my natural great grandfather. My grandfather was born in 1917 and I checked electoral rolls back to 1920 - my gt grandmother was living with this man at that time.

Although this does not prove anything, I have found something unusual on the 1911 census. This man is listed as head of household (condition of marriage is blank, but children born alive is 3). My gt grandmother is listed as wife, married for 4 years (she married her "first" husband 10 years earlier), then the children are listed as sons and daughters of the head of household.

Even stranger is the order in which the children are listed. There is the 4 year old daughter listed first ( she has no name of father on her birth certificate), then the children of the 1st marriage are listed later. I have never seen children listed out of birth order before. Could this mean that she is the natural daughter of the head of household whereas the other two are not?

Also, as my grandfather was not born for another 6 years but was raised by this man as a father figure - could he actually be his father?

Any help or advice on this would be greatly appreciated.

Who completed the form? Was it "him" - as Head of House? If so, it seems likely that he is putting his "wife" and natural daughter first.

On one of mine - similar circumstances - my trollopey gr grandma completed the form showing her live-in-lover as Head of House - lying about the length of their "marriage" and listing not just their joint children but one of her previous ones - in age order - as if she was covering something up.

None of it adds up in my case but yours does sound as if someone is trying to make it a bit clearer - or to be as honest as possible.

Jill

Also sounds likely that this chap is your grandfather's father. If they were together in 1911 and your grandfather born in 1917(?) and raised by the chap it sounds like they stayed together.

Jill

Yes, the census return was completed by him as head of household. What I am finding odd is that all the children born to my gt grandmother were given her married surname. Even though she was no longer living with her first husband (I presume he was left in Manchester) all subsequent children took on her married name and not that of her new man.Could this be because she was roman catholic and so could not remarry?

If a couple are married any child born to the woman is legally deemed to be the child of the husband - so that makes sense.

Jill

Thanks for all your help Jill. I am now certain that this 2nd "husband" would be the father of the other children. Most of these children have now since died but, even when they were alive, were very unwilling to talk about any of this stuff. I think they felt there was too much of a stigma for their mother to have different kids by different men, and so just swept it under the carpet.

Do you know if the church baptism records would have to state the natural fathers name?

Interesting point about the baptism records. That would definitely be worth looking into. I wonder what they put?

Jill

Whatever they put it will either give me the true identity of the father (hopefully - but probably not), a false name as a cover up (probably - but hopefully not) or it will be blank (aarrrrggghh!!!).

I will update this message if i find anything.

Thanks again Jill.

Kim.