A question for the Experts

In the late 18th Century and early 19th Century, if a couple were living together but not married - or if for some reason they were married but Church did not recognize the marriage as being legitimate:-

The father says about the children - yes these are my children - would the children be baptized under the Father's name?

If the children were baptized under the Father's name would a note be recorded in the records that the couple were not married?

 

Good question. IMHO I would say it would depend on the Father and the clergy of the church, on both counts.

 

They may be Baptised under Mother's name' reputed Father "what's his name"

Would depend on the narrow mindness or otherwise of the particular clergy. Some were very vindictive.
..until the experts happen along

 

I have one family who married and we have that record but eighteen months later on the birth certificate of their first child, the child is recorded with the fathers surname but their are no details for father, then at the baptism at the same time, the child has the father's name but it says mother single woman. These two were first cousins! Subsequent children had no problems! This was 1875 in Street, Somerset. Now I think I should look to see if it was the same vicar for subsequent baptisms!

 

It wasn't just a question of vindictiveness, Wendy. The important question was the right of settlement of the children. If the couple were not married then the children would obtain such rights in the parish, but if the father came from another parish (ie. held settlement rights elsewhere) they could have a claim on that parish. With an unmarried couple it was probably felt that, being illegitimate the children might be more likely to claim support from the parish later in life. Hence the need for fathers usually to be named if possible, even if only as "reputed",
Steve

 

That's very interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I know that different clergy recorded different amounts of info about the parents and the child. Some recorded the age or DOB of the child but most didn't seem to

 

Hmm, I am still stuck on Richard Massen and Amelia/Melcia/Milcah. I have a possible 12 children for them Baptized St. Nicholas, Kings Lynn. No notes are recorded next to the baptisms that may indicate that they may not be married.

They are the only couple in these records with the last name Massen [but sometimes the name is recorded as Mason].

All of the children are recorded as Richard Massen/Mason and Amelia as the Mother. The one that I am interested in is recorded as Richard Massen and Milcah as the Mother. [Joseph Massen baptized 26 March 1805 St. Nicholas Kings Lynn].

I found 1 other Joseph Massen - born and died 1802 Father Richard, Mother Amelia

The children's births range from 1796 to 1816.

So far the only marriage record that I have been able to find was for Richard Massen and Milcah Taylor 22 August 1821 St Martin, Birmingham. Is it possible that they would have waited all this time before getting married? Is it another Richard and Milcah?

I have copies of records that Richard Massen and Amelia lived at Jews Lane, Kings Lynn.

Richard Messen was buried 17th August 1832 St. Margarets, Kings Lynn and his address is Jews Lane Kings Lynn. He is aged 63. and his occupation is shoe maker. Amelia Massen died 18 December 1839, North Street, Kings Lynn.

I have a copy of a death certificate for Milciah Massen 18 December 1839, wife of Richard Massen, occupation cordwainer. Her age is recorded as 65 years. If Richard Massen had died in 1832 wouldn't Milciah's death record say Widow of or Relict of Richard Massen?

So, I am still trying to work out if there just so happens to be two Richard Massen's in the Area at the same time - one married to Amelia and the other married to Milciah.

If they are the Richard and Milciah who married in 1821, why did they wait so long? [I haven't found the original of their marriage record yet] - I hoped to find some more information from this particular marriage - ages etc. though I know that is very unlikely.

I have been stuck on this one for over 10 years, but don't want to move backward until I can be 100% certain that I have the correct people.

That is why I was asking about the names recorded in the records.

 

Do you know it's a wonder we get anywhere with our research sometimes. Good Luck, hope you eventually manage to work it out.

 

Sometimes a couple live together, and are regarded by all as man and wife but cannot marry, perhaps because of a living spouse. When he/she dies they go somewhere they are not known to marry and thus regularise their relationship.

 

The image at Ancestry says they were married by banns and we're both of this parish, he was a bachelor and she a spinster. So despite the unusual names they might be a different couple, or they just fibbed! If you has an example of Richards signature, perhaps at the marriage of one of his children, you could make a comparison

 

Probably no use to you at all but I have found this on FMP. Norfolk Chronicle 10th September 1836 at Lynn A marriage between Richard Massen a cordwainer and Misss Ann Perry.
On the same day there was a marriage at Northend between Henry Massen shoemaker and Miss Jemima Twaits.

 

I've got a feeling that there were two Richard Massens in Kings Lynn. There was a death for a Richard Massen in 1830 but no indication of age

 

Interesting find whilst searching.
Kings Lyn Directory of 1836 page 434.
Beer Houses:
MASSEN, Amelia, 9 Jews Lane.
Reading your other thread a couple of years ago, I think Jane may have had the answer to Amelia/Melcia in that she is the same person but her name Melia short for Amelia and misheard or transcribed incorrectly.
Also finding Amelia running a beer house in Jews Lane would add weight to Richard being deceased by 1836.

 

I also had another thought that perhaps Richard and Amelia were married earlier in the Jewish faith but had their children baptised Christian then married again as Christian.
That part of Kings Lyn was a very Jewish area before 1800.
Just a thought.......

 

I have husbands great grandparents who had 9 children from 1867 to 1892 but they didn't marry until 1904

 

I found the baptism for Edward on the Bishops Transcripts for 1816 on Family Search.
Edward son of Richard and Amelia 27 August 1816. Beside Amelia's name is a squiggle. Other names on the page, not all, have that same squiggle which appears to me at least, that it is a 'J'. ????

 

Sounds to me now, that she was born Milchiah and changed it to Amelia or at least was known as Amelia.

 

One possible birth for a Milcah Taylor in 1774 Rushall, Stafford. Father John. Mother Ann.
Another who died in 1872 mother of William Taylor so not her and another who died in 1814...that's it. That I can find. Others may find more. Not a very common name at all.

 

This is also possible. Amelia/Milcah was already married to another. Then again if she was 65 at death in 1839 then the Milcah Taylor born 1774 Rushall Stafford would fit. Post #18. Perfectly.

 

Yes, I believe that Richard and Henry are both sons of the Richard that I am looking for.