• Welcome to Family History Forum 🔎

    Dive into a community where unraveling family history is a shared passion. Here, real people collaborate, offering advice, insights, and support in navigating the rich tapestry of genealogy. Engage in vibrant discussions, pose questions, or celebrate your latest findings on our active message boards.

    Whether you're piecing together ancestry or breaking through brick walls in your research, our forum is your essential resource 📚

    Join fellow family historians in this journey, where every story uncovered strengthens the bonds that connect us all 🔗

    Family History UK
  • Do you love Genealogy? Why not write for us? we're looking for volunteers to write articles for Family history. Please contact us for further information.

Churchgoing ancestors

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,312
Likes
136
Location
Norwich
#1
Hi

I have evidence of some of my ancestors being regular churchgoers in their lives. They obviously believed in God. I think many Victorians believed in God. They thought that God saw everything and that vicars communicated with him. I think that is why church registers are probably more accurate than civil registers as they have been around a lot longer, and you mainly told the truth in churches. You may have got some people who lied to a vicar but I wouldnt think there were that many. If a man said in a baptism that he was the father of a baby that had been born out of wedlock, I think he'd only put his name down as the dad if he really was. If you have evidence of the family being churchgoers, then it is certain they would tell the truth in a church.

Ben
 

p.risboy

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
18,225
Likes
473
Location
In Ireland, but born Bucks.
#2
Hi

I have evidence of some of my ancestors being regular churchgoers in their lives. They obviously believed in God. I think many Victorians believed in God. They thought that God saw everything and that vicars communicated with him. I think that is why church registers are probably more accurate than civil registers as they have been around a lot longer, and you mainly told the truth in churches. You may have got some people who lied to a vicar but I wouldnt think there were that many. If a man said in a baptism that he was the father of a baby that had been born out of wedlock, I think he'd only put his name down as the dad if he really was. If you have evidence of the family being churchgoers, then it is certain they would tell the truth in a church.

Ben
Some of my rellies had '12 month' pregnancies. Children seemed to arrive 3 to 4 months after marriage.:rolleyes:

No wonder some were not baptised until some years later.

Steve.:)
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,312
Likes
136
Location
Norwich
#3
Hi

A lot of women were pregnant when they married.

Not forgetting that many parents wed after the birth of their first child. My great, great gran was the first child of Thomas and Mary Ann Roberts. They married when she was a baby as the father was still married, being a valid reason. His wife died just weeks before the birth after a long illness. The parents moved away then married. The baby was then christened after the parents wed as "Mary Ann Kate, Daughter of Thomas & Mary Ann Roberts" in the same church they wed at, 3 months after the wedding. That baptism alone is the most significant piece of evidence in Thomas being the father. Thomas is listed in later life as a regular churchgoer at a parish church according to service registers so he was obviously religious. Yes, he did get Mary pregnant when he was still married but his wife was really ill and Tom would have no doubt been under a lot of stress and bereft at his wifes illness.

Ben
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,312
Likes
136
Location
Norwich
#4
Here is the baptism of my great, great gran Mary Ann Kate Roberts. You have read about her and how her parents had to marry after the birth so here is her baptism on the 6th November 1864 aged 10 months.

If there is any copyright over this image then just remove it. We never know where we stand with copyright.
 

Attachments

marie44

Well-known member
Posts
155
Likes
0
Location
Owensville, Indiana
#5
Hi

A lot of women were pregnant when they married.

Not forgetting that many parents wed after the birth of their first child. My great, great gran was the first child of Thomas and Mary Ann Roberts. They married when she was a baby as the father was still married, being a valid reason. His wife died just weeks before the birth after a long illness. The parents moved away then married. The baby was then christened after the parents wed as "Mary Ann Kate, Daughter of Thomas & Mary Ann Roberts" in the same church they wed at, 3 months after the wedding. That baptism alone is the most significant piece of evidence in Thomas being the father. Thomas is listed in later life as a regular churchgoer at a parish church according to service registers so he was obviously religious. Yes, he did get Mary pregnant when he was still married but his wife was really ill and Tom would have no doubt been under a lot of stress and bereft at his wifes illness.

Ben
I guess i shouldnt be surprised but i am at how many women got pregnant back in the "old days". they were just as frisky as the people now a days. :)

marie44
 

tiddy30

Well-known member
Posts
263
Likes
0
Location
stockton on tees
#6
i of my reletives had a baby out of wed lock and even now we still haven't found out who the father was and i dont think we ever will.She married a few years later but it is doubtful he was the father as i dont think they would have waited years to wed.
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,312
Likes
136
Location
Norwich
#7
Hi Tiddy

What are the names? Have you searched for a baptism record at all? Have you got the marriage cert of the mother? If so, then what was the new husbands occupation?

Ben
 

tiddy30

Well-known member
Posts
263
Likes
0
Location
stockton on tees
#8
Hi Tiddy

What are the names? Have you searched for a baptism record at all? Have you got the marriage cert of the mother? If so, then what was the new husbands occupation?

Ben
the mother was called mary aithwaite,she had a son called matthew in 1903.Mary went on to marry reginald stephenson in 1919 in middlesbrough.Matthew was baptised at st pauls,thornaby(the family church) on 2/8/1903.
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,312
Likes
136
Location
Norwich
#9
Hi Tiddy

16 years between the birth and the mother marrying? That is a huge gap. It would still be good to send off for the marriage cert. I take it Matthew was baptised under her mothers name with no father?

Ben
 

tiddy30

Well-known member
Posts
263
Likes
0
Location
stockton on tees
#10
Hi Tiddy

16 years between the birth and the mother marrying? That is a huge gap. It would still be good to send off for the marriage cert. I take it Matthew was baptised under her mothers name with no father?

Ben
yes matthew was baptised as aithwaite,no father listed.Like i said its not likely the husband is his father as its too many years after.I dont think we will ever find out the story behind it lol.:( i suppose she could have been working for someone(u know the story)and a little meeting took place lol.The only prob with that idea is that i cant find any record of her before she had matthew and later married.
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,312
Likes
136
Location
Norwich
#11
Hi

Finding the father of an illegitimate child can be successful and unsuccessful at times. Sometimes I have had successes, which one is mentioned in this post with my attached image, and others I shall never find out.

Ben
 

Similar threads

Top