Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Natural Son? What does it mean?
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Vicky | Report | 5 Apr 2006 22:39 |
|
It means illegitimate. Natural son implies that they were born out of wedlock, but the HEAD of the household was their real father. But I wouldn't assume this is necessarily the case on a census form. I have a will where the chap left his ''watch, gun and wearing apparel to my natural son'' - but so far I haven't a clue who he was, because he's got his mother's surname! In another case, a couple who definitely didn't marry had a child & he has his father's surname. He was born 1842. It appears his birth wasn't registered, though we'll never know if that was the reason! It was obviously more than just a casual affair as she also registered the father's death a few years later (still using her maiden name). He's shown as 'son-in-law' (ie step son) on a later census with his mum's new husband. |
|||
|
Ann | Report | 5 Apr 2006 21:21 |
|
I think it means illegitimate, so presumably the children were born out of wedlock to the wife, so they would be the step children to the head, perhaps why he listed them last, to show they were not his? |
|||
|
Thelma | Report | 5 Apr 2006 21:19 |
|
Could they have been born outside of a marriage? They would then have their mother's surname. |
|||
|
Janet 693215 | Report | 5 Apr 2006 21:18 |
|
I would have thought that if they were born outside of marriage they would have had the mother's name unless the father was in attendance at the registry office. I suppose if they were acknowleged by the father and the mother subsequently died he may have taken them in. |
|||
|
Carole | Report | 5 Apr 2006 21:07 |
|
Looking thru the census in 51 for some rellies, I've come across quite a few odd children being tagged at the end of all the other siblings and described as Nat. Son/Daug to the Head. They always have a different surname to the head as well, and most are older than the other kids. If they were born out of wedlock but were still the heads natural child, wouldn't they share his surname? Carole xx |
|||