Genealogy Chat

I believe I traced this Harriet to another family, Harriet appears as just Harriet on the 1891 census, whilst John William has both names listed.

Have you ruled this birth out for young Harriet?

Births Mar 1875 (>99%)
CLARK Harriett Emma Holbeach 7a 392

???

John Hayes

England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975
christening: 2 July 1876 Holbeach, Lincoln, England
residence: Holbeach, Lincoln, England
mother: Harriet Hayes

Harriet Clark born abt 1856 married Robert Hayes 31 May 1875 at Holbeach, Lincs. Harriet Clark jnr was born abt 1875, birth regn not found,
John William Clark b 1879
William "Willie" Hayes b1884
Charles Henry "Harry" Hayes b 1887
both bapt 27 Mar 1887@ Whaplode
Willie adopted Hayes as his surname
Arthur b1889
Adopted Clark as his surname
Robert b 1891
Rose Ellen b 1893
Alfred b1896

Harriet lived at Saracens Head Mr Whaplode.

Perhaps she was being fairly honest and only putting her husbands name down as the father of the children that were his?

Maybe that she was living with her husband in 1901 but he isn't listed because he wasn't there on census night?

When you say you have found 2 baptisms, is that online or at the records office actually looking at records. Perhaps you missed seeing some, or they may have happened at a church you didn't consider. If she was honest about who was/wasn't the father with the vicar, maybe he refused to baptise the child. Some did, but the entry in the register had illegitimate or base born written by their names. She may not have wanted to admit before God and the congregation that she had sinned? Although it would appear that this might have been fairly obvious (said tongue in cheek)

Yes, you might not get to the bottom of it. Do you want to give any names and we can see what we can find?

If she was still married then the births would be in the husbands name even if he was dead...... But sometimes they registered in whatever name they chose.

I have two baptisms one with a made up fathers name and another names her husband (that's of course if he ever existed) because by this time she was living with another man who she went on to marry 25 years later after having 8 children.

These children were all registered in the fathers name as though the couple were married and no mention of her previous married name

No proof needed back then

My 2x GGrandmother had 8 children born between 1875 & 1896. She married in 1875, but the 1881 census has a note that she was living apart from her husband & she is listed under her maiden name at the 1891 census as well. By 1901 she appears under her married name & as married rather than widowed, but with husband not listed as living with her. The children have births registered under a mixture of her maiden name & her married name, with father either not listed, or shown as the man she married. To confuse matters further there is no consistency in terms of which name they appear under on census data, nor which last name they used as adults! I have found baptisms for only 2 of the children so far, the 3rd & 4th born, which do show the husband as father.
If my understanding is correct the man she married could easily have been recorded as the father when births were registered, even if they were no longer together, as they wouldn't both need to be present. I am not sure what the situation would have been regarding baptism, but I suspect that a mother could present children for baptism without the father being there. This wouldn't of course explain why some were registered differently.
I appreciate that my chances of getting to the bottom of this are slim, but any clarification on the situation with fathers names at birth regn & baptism would be appreciated.