Cohabiting Housekeeper

[Pauline]

I have just received a copy of a will proved in Wiltshire in 1816 (written 1814) in which the testator names one of my ancestors and describes her as "now living and cohabiting with me as my housekeeper". He also makes bequests to, and provides for the maintenance of, her "illegitimate children" (one of whom is my ancestor).

There were also legitimate children named in the will but I think their mother had died before the illegitimate children were born.

I am wondering how much I can infer from the wording in the will, as there is no explicit claim to paternity of the illegitmate children named?

 

[jorghes]

Difficult to say I would have thought - do the illegitimate children have "interesting" middle names that might be their father's surname? (my sole direct ancestor who is illegitimate - that I've found - has the middle name "Jones", while his older, also illegitimate brother had "Leadbetter" - I presume that these may very well be the surnames of their fathers. Seemingly both boys kept their mother's maiden name when they grew older, even when she married.)

You probably can't say either way whether or not they were his children as well - it's possible since he's providing for them. Have you followed the children? Do they take his surname or keep their mothers? It's not a real indicator I suppose, but it might tell you - that and you might be able to see if any of them named him as their father on marriage certificates or similar.

 

[Rhian]

The middle name as the name of the father, or presumed father, was quite common as it was the only way to get the fathers name on the registration. It was also common to use the family name of mothers or grandmothers on legitimate births which is another good finding aid.

My grandfather, Thomas Reuben Whitfield Burn, was illegitimate but I can be fairly sure that Thomas Reuben Whitfield was his father from his name and the fact his mother married him a few years later, a few months after his fathers death. On the other hand I have an Anne Kain who had am illegitimate son in 1821, the baptism transcript give the son as James Burn, as I have not seen the original I cannot say if he was named James Burn Kain or just James Burn which is the way the transcript records him. I can make assumptions all day but never be sure without more records which I have not yet found.

As jorghes said following the children might give clues, I have several cases where a family name was reused as a middle, or first, name two or three generations later.

 

[Pauline]

Many thanks for the replies. Because of the scope of this forum I had intentionally kept my question fairly general and focussed on the wording in the will, but maybe a bit of background would be helpful.

It is over 20 years since I first researched this illegitimate family (their surname was Pritchard). There were 6 children baptised between 1801 and 1809 in a small Wiltshire village; none of the children had middle names or other names which pointed to their father's identity. I did all the usual searches in bastardy and poor relief records to no avail, and without going into lengthy details, eventually came to the conclusion that most likely the father was a man of means and that he and the mother were living together. (She had been married but no longer with her husband.) I even drew up a list of suspects and checked all available wills of those on the list.

Scroll forward 20+ years, and the arrival of Wiltshire parish registers at Ancestry inspired me to look again at this family, and to cut a very long story short, my further investigations led me to look at the will mentioned above (the testator was a Thomas Comley), which was biggest clue to date as to the paternity of the children.

Since posting the above, I have found another supporting clue. One of the illegitimate sons married as a minor by licence, and I viewed this as part of my initial research. What didn't show up in the archives catalogue 20 years ago, but does now in a more recently compiled index, is that a couple of weeks before the marriage licence was granted, he had a licence application refused, and the index entry for this failed application indicates that he named his father as Thomas Comley. I now need to request copies of this to see the full details, though of course, being named as the father doesn't prove he actually was.

Which takes me back to the wording of the will - I believe that 'cohabiting' would normally have indicated living together as if married, but I was a bit thrown by the 'as my housekeeper' bit.

 

[jorghes]

I think then that it's possible that you have found the end of your search - it's interesting that the writer of the will had to quantify who he was talking about in regards to your ancestor - perhaps it was an arrangement that the rest of his family didn't know about and he was making sure that they couldn't contest the will or stall?

Very true about the fact about being named on a marriage certificate - my sole illegitimate ancestor named his step father in the "father" portion of his marriage documentation, even though he was marrying under his mother's maiden name. Could have been quite confusing if I didn't already know about the relationship and hadn't already realised that his stepfather couldn't be his biological father (otherwise there would be of course not reason for my g-g-grandfather not to use his stepfather's name!)

 

[Pauline]

I think then that it's possible that you have found the end of your search

This chap does seem more likely than not to be the father of the illegitimate children, and I guess he will now find a place in my family tree as a probable ancestor. I may never be 100% sure either way, though I haven't given up hope!

 

[peter]

The fact that the testator didn't acknowledge that he was the father may not be significant. One of my ancestors married a man who may or may not have fathered some of her illegitimate children, and whilst he didn't acknowledge in his will that he was the father of any of them, he did leave money to the two youngest, which leads me to suspect that he thought he was. One of them changed her surname to his (though that was not a condition of the bequest), which resulted in some researchers thinking there were two children, not one.

 

[Pauline]

The fact that the testator didn't acknowledge that he was the father may not be significant.

I guess that as, in a legal sense, illegitimate children had no father, any acknowledgement of paternity served no practical purpose. And unless specifically provided for in a will, illegitimate children would not inherit.

 

[peter]

I guess that as, in a legal sense, illegitimate children had no father

And legally they had no mother either!

 

[jorghes]

This chap does seem more likely than not to be the father of the illegitimate children, and I guess he will now find a place in my family tree as a probable ancestor. I may never be 100% sure either way, though I haven't given up hope!

Very true - your only other 100% positive could only come from a DNA match to someone who shares a Thomas Comley ancestor (or of course one of his parents.)

 

[Pauline]

your only other 100% positive could only come from a DNA match to someone who shares a Thomas Comley ancestor (or of course one of his parents.)

As it happens I do have a good confidence DNA match (4th-6th cousins) with someone who descends from Thomas Comley's brother John, but unfortunately it's not quite that simple. The match has an Ancestry tree and I immediately spotted (this being before I'd seen Thomas Comley's will) that we have a link via John Comely's wife, Mary Baldwin, who is sister (or half sister) of one of my other ancestors (and also, as it happens, great aunt of my illegitimate Pritchards). We are 6th cousins once removed by the Baldwins, but probably only by half blood.

Our shared matches don't really help much either - some have no trees, but of the two who do, one seems to have Comley ancestors but no Baldwins, while the other seems to have neither. I guess the difficulty also is that we are talking about small Wiltshire villages, with lots of entwined relationships, so although we know we are related, exactly whose DNA we share is less certain.

Edit: Have just looked again at the shared matches, and one of the people showing no family tree, actually has 4 trees at Ancestry - none linked to her DNA test, but one of which has the Comley link. So maybe that strengthens the possibility that we all share Comley DNA.

 

[jorghes]

You can probably take that DNA match anyway - especially since you have some links without the Baldwin side, regardless of how "certain" it is.

I'm so glad I only have one example of pedigree collapse/inter-linkage in my own tree - where a pair of first cousins married each other and thus their mothers shared the same set of parents. Because in my extended tree I have a lot of intermarriage between families who lived within the same villages - and occasionally ones who went back to their place of birth to marry someone within the extended family! (or with a family in which the family had intermarried before!!) It's rather disconcerting when both couples share the same surname and I admit my family tree software really struggles when I have dual relationships with people, it tends to pick just one, which when someone is described as the wife of a 5th cousin, but is actually a 5th cousin, can become a little confusing!

 

[Pauline]

I'm so glad I only have one example of pedigree collapse/inter-linkage in my own tree

I have only one proven example, with one of my Baldwin ancestors marrying his 3rd cousin, meaning that I descend from 2 sisters born in the 1580s - so not near ancestors!

However, when the same surnames keep cropping up in very small geographical area, more (and probably nearer) examples of pedigree collapse seem likely, even if the absence of available records means I may never find specific links.

 

[jorghes]

You're lucky - mine is a lot closer; the sisters are my 5th great grandmothers born in the 1750/60s - they were Dutch Jews, so there was plenty of intermarriage within their community, presumably because of the restricted number of Jews within Amsterdam. I'm still figuring out if they were also Ashkenazi Jews, which is a possibility, which further develops their "need" to intermarry. Suffice to say, I have enough DNA links from that particular pair of 6th great-grandparents to create one of Ancestry's DNA Circles; although it's still centring around one pair of the 5th great grandmothers rather than the true link of her parents! (the spelling of their names doesn't help, considering the combinations of Dutch, Hebrew/Yiddish and anglicisation that happens on people's trees)

Even with serious intermarriage within my extended tree, I have luckily not found any more examples in my tree - but then that may be that I still haven't traced the tree back far enough yet.

I think you have considered the possibility quite well and I think it merits the addition even with a question mark; you might get lucky on the DNA front someday - I always go back to my results to find more and more additions. (found yet another 2nd cousin 1x removed the other day through DNA/Ancestry - that's three so far!)

 

[Pauline]

you might get lucky on the DNA front someday - I always go back to my results to find more and more additions. (found yet another 2nd cousin 1x removed the other day through DNA/Ancestry - that's three so far!)

Yes, I keep checking back regularly, though I haven't had any additional matches yet in my nearer matches, but maybe be some time I will be able to confirm the link.

Meanwhile, I've just noticed a typo in my post #11 above, and I am too late to edit it - my DNA match and I are 6th (not 5th) cousins once removed via the Baldwins. If Thomas Comely is also my ancestor, then we are 6th cousins (no removes) via the Comleys.

 

[jorghes]

Meanwhile, I've just noticed a typo in my post #11 above, and I am too late to edit it - my DNA match and I are 6th (not 5th) cousins once removed via the Baldwins. If Thomas Comely is also my ancestor, then we are 6th cousins (no removes) via the Comleys.

More confusing in that you would be getting the same amount of DNA from both sides of the family! (if any at all)

 

[Pauline]

One of the illegitimate sons married as a minor by licence ........ a couple of weeks before the marriage licence was granted, he had a licence application refused, and the index entry for this failed application indicates that he named his father as Thomas Comley.

I now have a copy of the original refused licence application, and the son (Job) said that he had no father or mother but had consent from James Clark, his sole guardian. James Clark also appeared and said he was "the guardian appointed by the will of Thomas Comely deceased whilst living the natural and lawful father of the said Job Pritchard ...."

In fact James Clark was appointed a trustee of the will, but since this may have meant he handled the financial provision for the illegitimate children, he may have assumed the role of guardian as well.

Nevertheless, the response of the surrogate was that it was "impossible that Thos Comely can appoint James Clark guardian of Job Pritchard & also that the said Comely should be the father of Pritchard ....." & the licence was refused "until this matter is explained". I am assuming he meant impossible in a legal sense.

But with James Clark making oath that Thomas Comely was father of Job, it seems likely that he at least believed it to be true.