Children born out of wedlock

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

The Guardian has an interesting article today entitled "Who's the
daddy? Paternity mixed up in cities, study finds". I have opened the
paper that it links to (it's open access). I haven't read it thoroughly
but just skimmed through it, but I have the impression that it makes
the same error Bryan Sykes made in his book Adam's Curse, of assuming
that if a son has the same Y chomosome as his mother's husband then his
mother's husband is the biological father. However, that overlooks an
important point.

In the past, and to some degree today, it was assumed that if a
marriage didn't produce a child then it was entirely the woman's fault.
However, if a woman finds herself married to a man who is impotent or a
strict homosexual, how is she to keep up the appearances? Getting help
from the milkman is very risky, but there are at least two other men
with the right Y chromosome that can help, her father-in-law or a
brother-in-law. In either case the man would probably be anxious to
keep it secret to preserve the honour of the family.

[Ian Goddard]

there are at least two other men with the right Y chromosome that can
help, her father-in-law or a brother-in-law. In either case the man
would probably be anxious to keep it secret to preserve the honour of
the family.

It's only recently that the idea of "the right Y chromosome" would have
had any meaning.

[cecilia]

THoigh I doubnt On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:48:28 +0000, Ian Goddard

Post by Ian Goddard

there are at least two other men with the right Y chromosome that can
help, her father-in-law or a brother-in-law. In either case the man
would probably be anxious to keep it secret to preserve the honour of
the family.

It's only recently that the idea of "the right Y chromosome" would have
had any meaning.

I agree about DNA being a new idea.

Even with blood groups, my husband and my blood groups were such that
it is unlikely a non-paternal event would have been spotted.

But family features could reasonably be expected if the husband or
one of his near-kin was the father.

However, I slightly doubt that it was a frequent choice. Apart from
anything else, unless certain that the husband's near-kin would keep
it secret, even when drunk, whether or not he agreed to "help", the
wife could not afford to raise the topic.

[knuttle]

Post by cecilia
THoigh I doubnt On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:48:28 +0000, Ian Goddard

Post by Ian Goddard

there are at least two other men with the right Y chromosome that can
help, her father-in-law or a brother-in-law. In either case the man
would probably be anxious to keep it secret to preserve the honour of
the family.

It's only recently that the idea of "the right Y chromosome" would have
had any meaning.

I agree about DNA being a new idea.
Even with blood groups, my husband and my blood groups were such that
it is unlikely a non-paternal event would have been spotted.
But family features could reasonably be expected if the husband or
one of his near-kin was the father.
However, I slightly doubt that it was a frequent choice. Apart from
anything else, unless certain that the husband's near-kin would keep
it secret, even when drunk, whether or not he agreed to "help", the
wife could not afford to raise the topic.

This thread has talked a lot about DNA and the fact that the test method
is new. Blood type has been mentioned and everyone seems to think of it
as an old technique. The typing of blood was only discovered a little
more than 100 hears ago. So if you have developed family tree of any
size, none knew their blood type let alone had the concept of blood type.

The problems with technology it makes it easier for people to live in a
vacuum with out depending on other people. I always remember the song
from movie Fiddler on the Roof where the husband ask his wife of many
years "Do you love me?" I believe our ancestors had a much deeper
commitment to marriage than people in the last 75 years. The commitment
came because it was more obvious to them for the need for the male
female relationship, not just for sex but for making a complete working
unit.

[MB]

Post by knuttle
This thread has talked a lot about DNA and the fact that the test method
is new.  Blood type has been mentioned and everyone seems to think of it
as an old technique.   The typing of blood was only discovered a little
more than 100 hears ago.  So if you have developed family tree of any
size, none knew their blood type let alone had the concept of blood type.

DNA within a family is difficult.

Don't forget that a married couple in the UK nearly spent a long time in
prison because the body of a baby found at their house matched the
wife's DNA so they were obviously guilty of killing it.

They were very lucky being able to prove that they were out of the
country when it had been born and killed / died. Further investigation
suggested it highly likely that the wife's mother was guilty even though
she had died by then.

There was no doubt that they would have been convicted because DNA
cannot be wrong - statistics like one in x billion chance impress juries.

[Ian Goddard]

Post by MB
statistics like one in x billion chance impress juries.

I'd left forensic science before DNA was introduced but I read the
papers - and didn't trust big number statistics like that because the
probability of something being wrong, maybe chain of evidence, maybe an
assumption in the method, was more likely than coincidence to which it
was being applied.

[knuttle]

Post by MB

Post by knuttle
This thread has talked a lot about DNA and the fact that the test
method is new.  Blood type has been mentioned and everyone seems to
think of it as an old technique.   The typing of blood was only
discovered a little more than 100 hears ago.  So if you have developed
family tree of any size, none knew their blood type let alone had the
concept of blood type.

DNA within a family is difficult.
Don't forget that a married couple in the UK nearly spent a long time in
prison because the body of a baby found at their house matched the
wife's DNA so they were obviously guilty of killing it.
They were very lucky being able to prove that they were out of the
country when it had been born and killed / died.  Further investigation
suggested it highly likely that the wife's mother was guilty even though
she had died by then.
There was no doubt that they would have been convicted because DNA
cannot be wrong - statistics like one in x billion chance impress juries.

DNA was not wrong, just miss interpreted. DNA said the baby was a
member of the wife's family, it was. However DNA can not determine the
exact generation when the match occurs, and the court did not consider
the supporting evidence.

As genealogist we also do the same thing. We consider a DNA match proof
of a relationship but forget the document that supports the DNA match.

I have many DNA matches that I have ignored. The match is with a person
who has a couple of generation in their tree, and the match predicts a
match several generations before the first generation in their tree. I
don't feel I have the time to explorer their family when I have better
matches.

[MB]

DNA was not wrong, just miss interpreted.  DNA said the baby was a
member of the wife's family, it was.  However DNA can not determine the
exact generation when the match occurs, and the court did not consider
the supporting evidence.
As genealogist we also do the same thing. We consider a DNA match proof
of a relationship but forget the document that supports the DNA match.
I have many DNA matches that I have ignored.  The match is with a person
who has a couple of generation in their tree, and the match predicts a
match several generations before the first generation in their tree.  I
don't feel I have the time to explorer their family when I have better
matches.

I don't think I wrote that it was wrong just the way it was used and if
the defendant cannot afford a good lawyer the they can get away with
making the jury think that their interpretation cannot be wrong.

You tend to get a lot of probably spurious DNA matches but best not
write off without checking. I found an illegitimate child of an
ancestor from a DNA match that did not make sense at first because I was
not seeing any names I recognised.

I was also able confirm the illegitimacy of some born in the early 19th
Century through someone descended from a 3x Grandparent.

[knuttle]

Post by MB

DNA was not wrong, just miss interpreted.  DNA said the baby was a
member of the wife's family, it was.  However DNA can not determine
the exact generation when the match occurs, and the court did not
consider the supporting evidence.
As genealogist we also do the same thing. We consider a DNA match
proof of a relationship but forget the document that supports the DNA
match.
I have many DNA matches that I have ignored.  The match is with a
person who has a couple of generation in their tree, and the match
predicts a match several generations before the first generation in
their tree.  I don't feel I have the time to explorer their family
when I have better matches.

I don't think I wrote that it was wrong just the way it was used and if
the defendant cannot afford a good lawyer the they can get away with
making the jury think that their interpretation cannot be wrong.
You tend to get a lot of probably spurious DNA matches but best not
write off without checking.  I found an illegitimate child of an
ancestor from a DNA match that did not make sense at first because I was
not seeing any names I recognised.
I was also able confirm the illegitimacy of some born in the early 19th
Century through someone descended from a 3x Grandparent.

Please don't interpret what I said, DNA matches has proven several lines
in my family for which I could never get good documentation. While the
documented evidence still has not improved, I have had many DNA matches
in the ancestors siblings family. Two of these matches were t0 3rd great
grandparents

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by knuttle
Please don't interpret what I said, DNA matches has proven several lines
in my family for which I could never get good documentation.  While the
documented evidence still has not improved, I have had many DNA matches
in the ancestors siblings family. Two of these matches were t0 3rd great
grandparents

Almost identical situation when I married the first time. Having given
my name, I was asked for my father's name. I automaticallygave his 3
forenames and that's what appeared on my MC. His third forename being
his mother's maiden surname, there was nothing to suggest his surname
had been omitted.

I have yet to get around to having the error corrected!

[Ian Goddard]

Post by knuttle
Please don't interpret what I said, DNA matches has proven several
lines in my family for which I could never get good documentation.
While the documented evidence still has not improved, I have had many
DNA matches in the ancestors siblings family. Two of these matches
were t0 3rd great grandparents

Almost identical situation when I married the first time.  Having given
my name, I was asked for my father's name.  I automaticallygave his 3
forenames and that's what appeared on my MC.  His third forename being
his mother's maiden surname, there was nothing to suggest his surname
had been omitted.

My father-in-law gave his brother's name as his father's name on his
marriage certificate. The family were estranged from their father and
wouldn't even acknowledge him on official documentation. In fact I
didn't even realise my wife still had a living grandfather when we married.

What appears on certificates, census returns and any other documentation
we rely on is largely what the clerk think the respondent said or, even
worse, what they think they remember thinking what the respondent said.
The exceptions are the cases where the record was being made by someone
who knew the family. Even then concealment may have mislead them.
Let's be grateful that most of the time what was recorded seems to have
been what happened.

[knuttle]

Post by Ian Goddard

Post by knuttle
Please don't interpret what I said, DNA matches has proven several
lines in my family for which I could never get good documentation.
While the documented evidence still has not improved, I have had many
DNA matches in the ancestors siblings family. Two of these matches
were t0 3rd great grandparents

Almost identical situation when I married the first time.  Having
given my name, I was asked for my father's name.  I automaticallygave
his 3 forenames and that's what appeared on my MC.  His third forename
being his mother's maiden surname, there was nothing to suggest his
surname had been omitted.

My father-in-law gave his brother's name as his father's name on his
marriage certificate.  The family were estranged from their father and
wouldn't even acknowledge him on official documentation.  In fact I
didn't even realise my wife still had a living grandfather when we married.
What appears on certificates, census returns and any other documentation
we rely on is largely what the clerk think the respondent said or, even
worse, what they think they remember thinking what the respondent said.
The exceptions are the cases where the record was being made by someone
who knew the family.  Even then concealment may have mislead them. Let's
be grateful that most of the time what was recorded seems to have been
what happened.

I have a situation where a 2nd great grandfather states that his parents
were born in England in the 1880 census. Based on his parents family
bible, and on other documents the 2nd great grandfather completed, his
parents were born in Philadelphia and New York State. Family lore says
his grandfather came from England.


I suspect what happen was caused by a family trait. That trait is to
offer much more information than requested. I suspect what happened the
census taker visited this ancestor farm on a slow day. When the census
taker asked about the ancestor parents' birthplaces, the ancestor
launched into a long presentation of his family history that included
his parents history and what he knew of his grandparents. After some
time the census taker realized it was getting late, and excused himself.
At the next person he interview he realized he had not entered the
ancestor parents place of birth place. From the conversation he
remember some one was born in England and added that for the birth place
of the ancestor's parent in the 1880 census.

[MB]

Post by Ian Goddard
What appears on certificates, census returns and any other documentation
we rely on is largely what the clerk think the respondent said or, even
worse, what they think they remember thinking what the respondent said.
The exceptions are the cases where the record was being made by someone
who knew the family.  Even then concealment may have mislead them. Let's
be grateful that most of the time what was recorded seems to have been
what happened.

One of my Great Great Grandparents were married in Quebec, the record is
written in French and probably by a typically b####y-minded Frog clerk
so the names have some very strange spellings!

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
The Guardian has an interesting article today entitled "Who's the
daddy? Paternity mixed up in cities, study finds". I have opened the
paper that it links to (it's open access). I haven't read it thoroughly
but just skimmed through it, but I have the impression that it makes
the same error Bryan Sykes made in his book Adam's Curse, of assuming
that if a son has the same Y chomosome as his mother's husband then his
mother's husband is the biological father. However, that overlooks an
important point.
In the past, and to some degree today, it was assumed that if a
marriage didn't produce a child then it was entirely the woman's fault.
However, if a woman finds herself married to a man who is impotent or a
strict homosexual, how is she to keep up the appearances? Getting help
from the milkman is very risky, but there are at least two other men
with the right Y chromosome that can help, her father-in-law or a
brother-in-law. In either case the man would probably be anxious to
keep it secret to preserve the honour of the family.

My newsreader seems to have lost Ian Goddard's reply to the above, but
no matter: I can remember what it was.

Certainly, childless women before recent years would not have known
about Y chromosomes, but that wasn't my point. A woman in such a
situation in earlier centuries would be under a lot of pressure from
her in-laws to produce a baby, preferably a boy. If she was fertile she
could solve the problem by getting help from a fertile man. If she
chose her father-in-law he and everyone else would want to keep the
liaison secret. I realize that it's only recently that anyone has used
Y chromosomes to deduce whether many babies were assigned to the wrong
father, but in practice that can give wrong results.

[Richard Smith]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
In the past, and to some degree today, it was assumed that if a
marriage didn't produce a child then it was entirely the woman's fault.
However, if a woman finds herself married to a man who is impotent or a
strict homosexual, how is she to keep up the appearances? Getting help
from the milkman is very risky, but there are at least two other men
with the right Y chromosome that can help, her father-in-law or a
brother-in-law. In either case the man would probably be anxious to
keep it secret to preserve the honour of the family.

I dare say this did happen occasionally – anything that isn't actually
impossible probably happened occasionally – but I really can't see this
being a common occurrence.

First of all, I don't think the pressure to "keep up appearances" by
fathering a child was anything like as high as you suggest.
Historically, it was slightly unusual not have children, but in all but
the tiniest of hamlets there would have had childless couples.

In some cases this will have been because the couple never or only
rarely had sex. And yes, sometimes this will have been because of
homosexuality or impotence, and also because it marriage of convenience
where neither party had any interest in sexual relations with the other.
Bear in mind that until the 20th century, a ordinary person could not
both bring in a living wage and do all the household chores including
cooking. There simply weren't enough hours in the day. An unmarried
member of the middle classes could take in a housekeeper or a maid, but
this was beyond the reach of the working classes. Their choice was to
live with family, lodge or marry. I'm sure many marriages were entered
into purely for convenience.

However, probably more often, couples were childless of reasons that
couldn't then be explained. They were doing all the right things to
have children, but it never happened. These days this would often be
understood as infertility, and treated accordingly, but before the mid
20th century, it was simple happenstance. Or divine will if you were so
inclined.

Whatever the cause, although not the norm, it was not particularly
unusual for a couple to be childless. I'm sure it would have been
subject to some gossip – in close-knit communities, everything is – but
I doubt there would have been too much social pressure to have children.
If there was pressure, it was most likely to be within the family,
probably from the husband. I can well imagine a husband turning violent
because his wife consistently failed to become pregnant. That happens
these days, and I'm sure it did in the past too.

If there was a pressure to become pregnant, I'm very sceptical the woman
would turn to her brother-in-law or father-in-law. That means
explaining the problem to a close relative, who would probably take her
husband's side. She might well turn to own brother or father for
support, but the taboo on incest would normally stop it from going
beyond that. If a relative is involved, whether direct or in-law, and
whether as a confidant or as the real father, this involves them in a
scandalous secret that could endanger the mother and child's lives, were
it to become known. Far better to involve someone who the family
doesn't often see. Maybe she would confide in a friend that the rest of
the family don't know very well. Better still, she might get pregnant
by someone passing through the area – an itinerant labourer, someone in
the area for a wedding, a visiting tradesman. With luck, they'll never
be seen again and her secret is safe.

If the real father turns out to have the same Y-DNA haplotype as the
putative father, and assuming they're not the same person, I think it's
most likely they're very distant relatives. Y-DNA only mutates slowly,
so unless the haplotype had only entered the area recently, even if the
haplotype is rare at a national level, there were probably hundreds or
thousands of men with the same Y-haplotype in the area, very likely with
many different surnames. Before the advent of railways, it's quite
likely the real father came from the same broad area as the putative
father – even if the real father was someone passing through, he was
likely not from far afield. That means an increased likelihood of
sharing the putative father's haplotype by coincidence. If the authors
of the paper haven't properly taken this into account, this may
introduce a systematic bias of the sort you're describing. I think an
unaccounted bias of this sort is far more likely than a significant
degree of fathering by in-laws as you suggest. But we have no reason to
suppose any such error does exist.

Richard

[MB]

The Guardian has an interesting article today entitled "Who's the daddy?
Paternity mixed up in cities, study finds". I have opened the paper that
it links to (it's open access). I haven't read it thoroughly but just
skimmed through it, but I have the impression that it makes the same
error Bryan Sykes made in his book Adam's Curse, of assuming that if a
son has the same Y chomosome as his mother's husband then his mother's
husband is the biological father. However, that overlooks an important
point.
In the past, and to some degree today, it was assumed that if a marriage
didn't produce a child then it was entirely the woman's fault. However,
if a woman finds herself married to a man who is impotent or a strict
homosexual, how is she to keep up the appearances? Getting help from the
milkman is very risky, but there are at least two other men with the
right Y chromosome that can help, her father-in-law or a brother-in-law.
In either case the man would probably be anxious to keep it secret to
preserve the honour of the family.

I don't read the tabloids so not seen that.

Knowledge and availability of DNA evidence is recent so I can't see it
having much influence. Perhaps going back a bit further, people knew
deductions could be made from blood groups.

People were more practical in the past. In rural areas, children would
be needed to work a farm so if the husband was unable to produce a child
then I suppose his wife might take steps to get pregnant with or without
his knowledge though it seems common for brides to be pregnant possibly
as proof of fertility or her and husband. Would she marry someone else
if he could not get her pregnant?

One of my family was widowed with two infants in her thirties and
married someone over twice her age, it could have been "love" but seem
more likely just practicality as she needed a husband and he needed a
cook, carer etc. He died after a few years.