RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: trish251 on Saturday 11 November 06 07:56 GMT (UK)
-
It seems to be in my families in the Victorian years (when all were supposed to live the straight and narrow life) most marriages occurred a very short time before the birth of the firstborn child of the couple. Was this as common as it appears to be in my families.
Trish
-
The same in mine. I think it took them that long to find the man and get him to the altar in time!
-
Lol Bev - glad to hear I'm not unique ;D ;D
Trish
-
I've got quite a few of those too, Trish, if it makes you feel any better ;D
-
Me too, very common in some of my family, even those who were supposed to be God fearing Baptists!!!!!
Kerry ::) ::) ::)
-
Hi Kerry
Most of mine were God fearing protestants of one type or another - I shall have to review my ideas of life in Victorian Great Britain (some of mine were also Scots)
Trish
-
Trish
It makes you wonder doesn't it? I always thought the Victorians were supposed to be so moral, but they appear no better than any other generation.
Kerry
-
Hello
An interesting subject that does make you think twice about Victorian straight laced myths ;) And, yes, I too have quite a few suspect births in my tree :)
Although research is scant (and difficult to verify because of 'late' baptisms) it has been estimated that in the 18th Century pre-nuptial pregnancy occurred in approximately 30% of marriages. In the first half of the 19th Century it was estimated that in smaller towns around 40% of brides were pregnant at the time of marriage and increased to approximately 50% at mid-century.
The generally touted figure is that between a third and a half of brides were pregnant in the mid-19th century.
If accurate, quite startling really.
Cheers
Biker
-
Plenty of that going on in my family too. It wasn't just in Victorian times either. My Grandparents' married in December and my Dad came along at the beginning of February! But better still in my husbands family - his Grandparents married on Christmas Day and their first child was born on Boxing Day! Cutting that fine wouldn't you say ;)
Susan
-
Hello
An interesting subject that does make you think twice about Victorian straight laced myths ;) And, yes, I too have quite a few suspect births in my tree :)
Although research is scant (and difficult to verify because of 'late' baptisms) it has been estimated that in the 18th Century pre-nuptial pregnancy occurred in approximately 30% of marriages. In the first half of the 19th Century it was estimated that in smaller towns around 40% of brides were pregnant at the time of marriage and increased to approximately 50% at mid-century.
The generally touted figure is that between a third and a half of brides were pregnant in the mid-19th century.
If accurate, quite startling really.
Cheers
Biker
Biker
That is startling reading! I guess that lack of contraception didn't help obviously but even so!!!
The Victorian backlash against the loose morals of the Georgian and regency periods didn't really work then did they!
Kerry
-
The years between 1850 to 1860 appear to have been quite an 'active time' in my particular tree.
Just checked this out:
In the baptism records for one very small village:
1851 - 6 births, 1 of which was illegitimate
1852 - 13 births, 3 illegitimate
1853 - 11 births, 1 illeg.
1854 - 10 births, 1 illeg.
1855 - 17 births, 3 illeg.
and so on until 1865 where 2 out of eight births were recorded as being to the unfortunate 'single woman'
This being the case for actual 'out of wedlock' births, the recorded ones at that - marriages which were hastily planned or indeed brought forward must have taken place in every second family!
Pels :o
-
Pels, thanks for that, very interesting.
Kerry - I'm not too sure about the argument regarding a lack of contraception as rubber condoms were around from 1843 though probably only affordable for a certain social group/class so there could be something in that, but other methods were available long before the Victorians. I guess availability and knowledge was very variable and social acceptability of sex before marriage other than what one may have thought ;)
http://www.fpa.org.uk/about/info/contraceptionpastpresentandfuture.htm
Biker
-
I have plenty of this on my side too. My gg grandparents married (in NJ) just a few months before my great-grandfather was born, and the marriage took place just days after he converted to Catholicism. :o
It's definitely a family pattern. My grandmother did it and now, with our research, we question whether her oldest is actually my grandfather's son. ???
Kath
-
I have read, that in some communities, it was customary for the woman to "prove" herself capable of having children before any said marriage took place. In Folkestone, Kent (I can't remember the exact dates offhand but possibly 18C), the vicar offered a teapot (or similar item - writing from memory) to any bride who was "without child" and that the said item was only claimed something like once in the given time span!
Casalguidi
-
I know in Wales, and may be in Scotland, there was the old tradition of "bundling" where the lady and gentleman were allowed in the same bed together but couldn't do anything because they were individually "wrapped" in blankets. Anyway, sex hadn't been invented then........
-
Hey - don't be too hard on these poor souls - I'm sure they were just trying to keep each other warm through the long harsh winters....... ;D ;D
-
I think a lot of my ancestors were expecting at the marriage.
A couple of them were 'base children'. So I have no idea as to my male line ancestry there.
Some of the ones to have married while expecting went on to produce 12 or 13 children, perhaps they very fertile!
A lot seemed to marry cousins further back [lack of choice, I suppose].
-
Yes ,I too have quite a few.......I call them "Try before You Buy" ;) ;D... that way the chap is sure he's got a fertile bride.
Lin
-
Historically, a betrothal was a binding contract - that's why a jilted partner could sue for "breach of promise". There's some interesting stuff on Wikipedia, including this:
"In some historical cultures (including colonial North America), the betrothal was essentially a trial marriage, with marriage only being required in cases of conception of a child. In almost all cultures there is a loosening of restrictions against physical contact between partners, even in cultures which would normally otherwise have strong prohibitions against it."
I was looking up some Swiss records last week, and found a child born in 1826, shortly before her parents' marriage. She was baptised with the father's surname, and there was a note in the register to say she was "née sous la foi de promesse de marriage". (Literally "born in the faith of a promise of mariage".)
In this area, they went even further: a man who promised to marry a woman and subsequently got her pregnant could be forced by the local court to marry her if he tried to back out! We found one case where the guy had done a runner, and his brother was obliged to stand in for him at the wedding.... :o (The lady in question then had her baby legitimately, and afterwards was allowed to divorce the guy for desertion while still preserving her good name!)
Rambler
-
I feel quite out of it!! :( Haven't found any examples of this in my family, even in the case where I might have expected it! Unless an early baby was stillborn or died young, and I haven't found it...
MarieC
-
Hi Marie,
Lend you a few of mine if you like!
Bev
-
No no - only genuine ones are wanted!! I really WOULD like someone even a little bit badly behaved to add some interest!! Thought I had a bigamist for awhile, but that proved not to be correct, so it's back to a long line of God-fearing, well-behaved ancestors! (Unless the ones who have gone missing did something dire - but maybe I'll never know!)
MarieC
-
Some interesting info here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
-
Having been brought up with the understanding that it would be severely frowned on if I got pregnant while not married, I was amazed to discover how much illegitimacy/near misses had occurred in the past in the family. Granted it was my father who was particularly adamant about my 'morals', and I haven't found any slip ups in his family. However my mother's mother 'had to' get married, and further back it seemed common place.
In someone else's tree that I am doing there was one 'lady' who had 4 illegitimate sons before getting married, and 2 sisters who had 5 between them. As there was poverty in their community, I wonder if maybe theirs was a very old proffession!!!
Helen
-
I have a 3 x great grandmother who had 3 illegitimate children before marrying a widower with 3 children and then having another 4 between them.
I bet she told him she was a widow. ::) ::) ::)
Kerry
-
My God-fearing Local Methodist Preacher ancestor was illegitimate. I reckon they were just a rampant lot! ;D
-
I do wonder what they would all think of the youngsters of today. ;) ;)
Christina
-
A common occurrence in my families too, in fact some had several children before they eventually tied the knot. :) and some never did. :o
-
I recently discovered and old tradition in the Borders (of England & Scotland for non-Bits members!) that couples could have a trial marriage for a year, and simply part if it didn't work out. If it resulted in a child, either party could still back out of the marriage, but they had to take care of the child.
And only a few days ago, I found that it seems my ggg grandparents got married the same day as the christening of their youngest child (the 7th!), my gg grandfather... I wonder if they got married because she was dying as a result of the birth?
I think the view we have of the 'upright' Victorian era actually comes from the hypocrisy of the middle and upper classes - nothing changes! Priestley's 'An Inspector Calls' is a pretty good example of this, as are most of Dickens' novels, and time and time again I come across examples of so-called Victorian 'morality'!!!
-
Oops - should have been 'non-Brit members' :-\
-
Sorry everyone but my Hannah still holds the record with eleven baseborn children, her only saving grace as far as I can see is that they did all have the same father. ;D
I've just been checking out her stats........
Of the six daughters one never married but still had four children, three had early babies and the other two died before they had a chance to get going.
Of the five sons, again two died and two had early babies - so the prize for "being good and staying pure" :D goes to eldest son Francis who seems to be the only one to make it to the alter with his bride intact :D
Suey
-
Suey
That must be a record!!!!!
But is it really one to be celebrated ;D ;D ;) ;)
Kerry
-
But is it really one to be celebrated
Hi Kerry, As I'm stuck with Hannah as a 3 x great grandma and I can't very well hide her or the facts I may as well own up with bells on ;D ;D
What I can't fathom out is why she and William never married there must have been a reason I just havn't found it yet :(
Suey
-
Suey
With that many children between the two of them it really sounds like there must have been a reason why they didn't marry.
Was he already married or was there some reason her parents didn't approve of him or something??
How intriguing!!
Kerry
-
Suey
With that many children between the two of them it really sounds like there must have been a reason why they didn't marry.
Was he already married or was there some reason her parents didn't approve of him or something??
How intriguing!!
Kerry
Maybe they just couldn't make the time ..... ;D ;D ;D
-
I was born out of wedlock in 1933. I was brought up in a foster family and I was 66 years old when I found out who my father was.
It seems to me that some people have now found a new contraceptive,-------Staying on Rootschat all night!!!!!!
-
LOL Deegee
I think my partner might agree with that ::) ::) ::) ::) :o :o :o :o
He has to drag me off each evening. He'll be home soon perhaps I'd better think about dinner.
Kerry ;D ;D ;D
-
I have cheated, sent out for fish and chips, so more time on here. and no clearing up. ;D ;D ;D
Patrish.
-
Was he already married or was there some reason her parents didn't approve of him or something??
How intriguing!!
It's all very odd ???, William legitimised all the children in his will calling them his 'natural children' .
There is no sign of him having a wife elsewhere
Hannahs father also left a will and named the nine children born up to that date as 'my grandchildren' - so no problem there either.
Having said that Hannah's father was nearly as bad, he left the bulk of his small estate to his own b****** son :o
Gawd, what a family ::) however it does make things interesting :D
Suey
-
Sounds a bit like my great great grandmother's family.
Helena Lorraine Lovekin Stanford Smith, so far I've not found a marriage for her parents and everytime I order what I think is a birth certificate for one of the nine children, the father's name that comes back is an unknown man, usually with the surname Lovekin, so far helena's siblings have a William Lovekin as father, a Henry Lovekins and a John Lovekin. ::) ::)
The father on the census records is John Smith or is it????
Oh and Helena's birth certificate, well so far after ordering 3 I think I have narrowed it down to one particular one that calls her Helena Rawlins with father William Rawlins. The only linking factor on all these is the mother Emily Stanford. ??? ???
Oh and in 1871 there appears to be two almost identical census records for the family. :o :o
I am now beginning to think they just liked a joke!!!!! ;D ;D
Kerry
-
Lol Kerry, Helena Lorraine Lovekin Stanford Smith
what a great name :D You have my commiserations :'( Have you ever found a Mr Lovekin?
- at least my lot were truthfull if at times a little confused as to which surname they should be using, all the surviving children, bar one, eventually made it to the alter, baptised and registered their children and told the truth at census time, so something to be grateful for ;D
Methinks there's something in the Sussex air, don't you ;D ;D
-
Methinks there's something in the Sussex air, don't you ;D ;D
Methinks you could be right ;D ;D ;D ;D
Kerry
-
All this makes my family's "indiscretions" quite mild. There had been some doubt about my father's grandparents getting married (I don't think they did), and my mother said quite emphatically "But there's nothing wrong with my family".
Well, up to a point, Lord Copper ;D ;D
A few years ago when I started doing my research, she passed over some information a cousin of hers had gathered. She quietly, discreetly, and perhaps sheepishly, pointed out that her grandparents had produced their first child before they were married.
Otherwise, given the evidence on the rest of this thread, I am just a little disappointeed that I have only one orphan, one illegitimate, and one set of married first cousins to show (so far).
JULIAN
-
Many thanks to everyone for the most interesting replies. I was initially thinking of all the "late" marriages in my families but comments have moved on to "no marriages" (and I have a couple of them) and even cousins. A couple of my family branches were very into cousins marrying cousins - I often think it was perhaps a good idea that some of them moved to Australia & found some new genes to mix with ;D ;D
Suey's family were perhaps the frontrunners of what seems very common today - legal marriage is not a necessity for a good relationship. I was discussing with a friend today that divorce was so much more expensive than marriage - perhaps removing both from the list of events could be a very good idea.
Trish
-
Divorce is as expensive as you make it. My ex and I mutually agreed on everything and remained good friends thoughout and still are 12 years later, its cost us hardly anything. I know this is not always possible but the only winners in divorce are the lawyers.