Thread: Balance Of Probabilities?

Hi



Sorry to bring it up again but I am pleased about my Roberts success story, but in all honesty what do you think are the balance of probabilities of it. It is very feasable that he was this babys father isnt it? Recap:-



The baby was born 31 Dec 1863, Birth Cert Details;- Born 31 Dec 1863, Mary Ann Walder, daughter of Mary Ann Walder, Warninglid, Slaugham, Sussex, registered 28th Jan 1864. No fathers name or occupation mentioned.



On 25th July 1864, Mary Ann Walder marries 50 miles away in London to Thomas Roberts, a servant at West Hackney Church, London.



On 6th Nov 1864, the baby is baptised as "Mary Ann Kate, Daughter of Thomas & Mary Ann Roberts".



Thomas was living 12 miles down the road from Mary Walder in Brighton in the 1861 census and is married to Esther, a schoolmistress.



Esther Roberts dies on 14th November 1863 in Brighton after a long illness of "Phthisis, years certified". Phthisis is lung Tuberculosis.



Unmarried Mary Ann Walder is heavily pregnant (around 7 months pregnant) when Esther dies. Her baby Mary Ann is born 31 Dec 1863, 6 weeks after Esther's death, and registered as illegitimate with no fathers name.



Thomas and Mary Ann obviously moved to London together straight after the birth of the baby.



The babys birth was registered on 28 Jan 1864 in Sussex, and the parents wed on 25th July 1864 in London. They movede there inbetween say late Feb and late May 1864.



The length of his previous wifes illness would make him probably stray for comfort.



From the baptism in 1864 onwards, all documents record Thomas as Mary Ann Kate's father, census and the marriage cert. When the babe was baptised she was baptised as Thomas's daughter.



If he wasnt the father it is a bit of a coincidence that in the spring of 1863 that unmarried singlewoman Mary Ann Walder fell pregnant and the father ran away or died, at the same time Mary's future husband Thomas Robert's wife was dying of phthisis, (TB) at exactly the same time:-



- And then to suddenly meet and marry the following summer and Thomas to say he was the father from then on in the baptism, census etc.



Mary's father John Walder was a local businessman, he was a wheelwright.



Ben

Another good thing to look at our Wills . Did Marys Father leave one you never know what you can find in a will .



One of mine was in a Will as reputed son of although another named the father of child.

Hi



Marys father left a will. He left his money to all of his children to share and share alike in 1876. That was all.



Chris, I remember in a PM that you told me that I have enough proof to say Thomas was the father. Do you still agree?



Thomas baptised the baby as his child and the timing of events is right. His previous wifes illness and her dying when Mary was heavily pregnant is good.



Ben

Hi Ben,



Have you found proof in the poor law records of Mary admitting that Thomas was the father of the baby. If the baby was recorded as illigitimate the parish would have had to help pay for it's upkeep. By 1863 he would have been lucky not to have gone to jail but may not have done if he went on to marry her, but it would still be recorded.

Hi



The baby was born on 31 December 1863 in Warninglid, Sussex, and the birth cert says that she was illegitimate.



Thomas Roberts had just lost his wife Esther on the 14th November 1863, just 6 weeks before his next wife gave birth to her illegitimate daughter.



Esther had been ill for a long while according to her death cert. Phthisis, years certified.



Unmarried Mary was 7 months pregnant when Esther died.



Thomas only had ONE other child by Esther and she was 12 year old by then.



Thomas and Mary then swiftly moved away and wed in London in July 1864. The babe was christened in November in London as "Daughter of Thomas & Mary Ann Roberts".



Ben

Hi Ben



No doubt he was was the father as i have same problem , the only way i can suggest is to write Reputed daughter if you can not find [ proof ]



I can never [ Prove ] my grt grandfathers son as such as no papers show, I am lucky to have a photo which he looks like his brothers which were born in wedlock.

Hi Ben,



I personally do not think you have enough evidence to prove that Thomas was the father. Have you traced his whereabouts from 1863. There are thousands of people with the same names and Thomas Roberts isn't exactly a rare name.

[quote name='Chris']Hi Ben



No doubt he was was the father as i have same problem , the only way i can suggest is to write Reputed daughter if you can not find [ proof ] [/quote]



Hi Ben,



I fully agree with Chris' suggestion to enter the child as 'reputed dau' unless/until you find documented proof that she was infact Thomas' dau.



The facts at the moment are - the baby was born illegitimate with no named father.

Thomas Roberts married the baby's mother when the baby was 7 months old.

After the marriage the baby was christened as 'dau of Thomas and Mary'.



I'm sorry to disappoint you Ben, but I don't think there's enough evidence to assume 'baby' was Thomas'. The marriage, quite possibly, was a convenience for both Thomas, and Mary. Certainly, if this were my ancestry I wouldn't base parentage on probability. In those hard times, and to a degree even today, people married for reasons other than love, and when a man has lost his wife, is feeling bereft and lonely, and a woman had a child to raise alone........the chance of happiness for both would PERHAPS be a good reason to marry.

Hi



I have him down as if he was the father of the baby in my family trees, but in my personal notes section on ancestors, I have put that Thomas might not have been the father. But he is down as her father in the tree as he was her father, biological or not.



I wouldnt change his position in my tree as "reputed father" as he was still her father in every other way if he wasnt the real one.



I have worked hard on this and am worried that it is all for nothing and that my Success Story was all a waste of time and untrue?



Ben

It's your tree Ben And so long as you aren't misleading future generations there'll be no harm done.