Genealogy Chat

LOL you two!! But hey all is not lost, I followed Robin's hunch and checked the marriages of the other menfolk and the birth of Thomas. James was married june 1839 and among the spouses was a Mary Ann Banks. Am sending for the cert to eliminate Mary Ann as born a Sharman allowing MY Mary Ann to be Samuel and Sarah's daughter as on the extracted birth IGI and parish records Please keep all fingers crossed for me. MMMMwwwaaah xx to Robin, at least til I get the cert!! Kat ...can't wait now, how long are the certs taking to arrive. My last 4 took nearly 6 weeks.

pmsl

Kat Hallo! Can't help, but sympathise. I have some Norfolk bastards. My great-grandmother Ruth was illegitimate and the bastardy bonds relating to her parish don't survive, so I will have two blank boxes for a set of great-great grandparents, sob! Meanwhile, Ruth's husband's aunt Elizabeth was a naughty girl. She had an illegitimate son called Octavian in 1847 and then in 1859 an illegitimate daughter called Mary Timbers Gray. Although Timbers might be a clue to her father, I can't find a likely male around. Even more shocking, Mary wasn't baptised until 1864!!! OOOOHHHH! Mind you, you can console yourself with the thought that at least some of the children on birth certs with legitimate fathers might not actually have the real dad's name on the cert, eh! Oh la la! nell

Thanks Robin, I got so tied up in the Priscilla/Mary Ann bit I neglected that bit. Samuels, James or even Frederick at a push could be the father. Will check them out tonight. Jools lol :))) Kat

Kat - you think you've got problems with un--named fathers. I have 3 generations of a family where every female has at least 3 (and in one case 7) children and in EVERY case there is no father's name on the BC. Now that really is a bastard :)) It's quite interesting to see the names the illegitimate offspring dreamed up for their father when they got round to marrying. Jools

Alternatively the Mary Ann in Yarmouth in 1841 could be James's wife? FreeBMD has a possibility for a marriage, June 1839. Do you know who Thomas's parents are?

Kate I have checked further censuses and marriages but cannot find Samuel junior anywhere , will have to check deaths when time allows to see if he died before 1851. No I am not sure about the death cert being MY Mary Ann, If she had died in Norwich I would have been more convinced. I thought she might have gone back to Yarmouth after the 1851 census and died there a year later. As her children had flown the nest by then she might have gone back home? Kat

This thread title was not meant to give offence to anyone, . the definition of By-blow is simply Illigitimate child or bastard. I thought it was a softer approach. I cannot believe your comments. Sylvia. where did you get your definition from<<coined by men to describe an illigitemate child>>? I have changed the title so you wont be offended. the bastards ARE a real challenge as you know if you have them in your tree. respectfully Kat :)

oh that's much better, Sylvia! A chance event... Sarah :-)

By-blow is an archaic word that meant chance or accident. Hence it was used to describe a chance or accidental conception. and the resultant off-spring. Sylvia.

How lovely Sylvia! I had never heard of that one.... not sure if it's better than the B word or not?! Sarah :-) Any ideas of the origins? it sounds like 'conceived by blows' (rape?) Horrible!

It is a delightful term coined by men to describe an illigitemate child. Sylvia.

Being thick... What's a 'by-blow' when it's at home? Sarah :-)

Although I am not one myself I too find this expression very offensive. Sylvia.

Hi Peter, I don't have her marriage cert but I have the GRO ref. ready.If Mary Ann is on there tho' it won't say if she's a sister or whether I have the right one, Hey Ho... it's sooooo frustrating. thanks for you imput tho'...any more ideas? Kat If only she'd done the decent thing and got herself wed I'd have had the father's name at least. Little trollop, but I was getting quite fond of her til today!!

Any chance Mary Ann was a witness at Pricilla's first marriage? Peter

thats a thought Kate, I'm clutching at straws!! Will check on further censuses and marriages to see if I can find them. If only the relationship was given on the death cert, would solve all problems! Thanks for your help Kat

If you are sure it is the right Mary Ann on the death certificate then I would say that the rest fits together because of Priscilla being the informant and wouldn't worry too much about that Mary Ann on the 1841 Yarmouth. So, are you certain that the Mary Ann on the death certificate is your one? Oh, and does it say Priscilla was her sister on the death certificate? Another thought, after looking at the (Yarmouth) 1841 census entry - I don't suppose Samuel junior was married to a Mary Ann, was he? Kate.

Hi Ozibird ,how you doing? I just want to confirm Mary Ann's parentage but cannot see a way to do it. The gut feeling is there, but so is the doubt.I cannot put her on my tree until I know for sure.If Samuel and Sarah are correct I have more generations behind them to add, but it's no good if they're not mine. kat I wish I could somehow scrub Mary Ann's name off that 1841 Yarmouth census!!!

bumping in hopes