RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Foresthamlet on Friday 13 August 10 10:33 BST (UK)
-
I was wondering if the Stigma of being illegitimate followed a person through life.. Being an illegitimate female in a countryside town in 1800, could there be an embarrassment when getting married, if no father was known?
-
Probably not. It would depend a lot on the strata of society she was from and where she lived.
A housemaid who got married would likely be a lot less concerned than maybe a schoolteacher's daughter. The daughter of a gentry household might be concerned, but not the daughter in a farm house family.
I think from my history and sociology reading, people were a lot less worried about that sort of thing than some people nowdays think they would have been.
Leonie.
-
My gran was 6 months pregnant when she married in 1896, her eldest sister already had a 1 year old when she married in 1892 (she did marry the father of the child, but left her behind with her grandparents!), so I don't think it was that unusual then to be pregnant before marriage.
I didn't tell my mother about her mother (and I don't think she knew as her parents had been married years when she was born and then her father died when she was 12, so no wedding anniversaries to let the cat out of the back), nor did I tell her that her father's g.grandmother never married, so that her maiden name had actually come down to her via an unmarried mother ::) ::)
Going further back in my tree to the early 1800s/late 1700s there were lots of them who were already pregnant when they married.
Lizzie
-
I think attitudes in the country were more lax. It was only people who had a position to maintain and neighbours to impress who worried about such things.
I've got quite a few illegitimate rellies in my tree. My gt grandmother Ruth Barnes, was illegitimate, born in a Norfolk village in 1846. On her marriage cert it states "illegitimate daughter of Susanna Barnes". Susanna died when Ruth was 5 and she was brought up by Susanna's parents.
I think Ruth wasn't fazed by her illegitimacy at all. She worked as an assistant school mistress before marrying and having 10 children, one of whom she gave Barnes as a middle name. Allegedly she knew her Bible inside out (many of her children - including my grandfather Jeuel - had obscure Biblical names) and she would correct the vicar if he misquoted during his sermons!
-
It's also true that in rural communities where there were farms to inherit, the potential bride's virginity wasn't as important as her ability to have babies!
-
On the other hand, I found a Gloucestershire family in one census, where a couple were looking after their illegitimate grandson. In the occupation column it simply says "bastard" which I think is probably a bit of spite!
-
Jeuel I take it you never found even a hint to the possible father of Ruth Barnes?
-
It's also true that in rural communities where there were farms to inherit, the potential bride's virginity wasn't as important as her ability to have babies!
Indeed; and also, in the days before pensions and benefits, the working class people needed to have children in the hope that there would be someone to support them in their old age. People had a practical attitude towards these things.
-
My 3xgreat grandmother had a illegitimate baby in 1863 in a village in Sussex. The mothers father was a village wheelwright. He was quite a successful businessman.
-
Coombs
Regarding Ruth Barnes I haven't actually explored the possibility of maintenance orders yet - will put it on my to do list when I next get up to Norwich.
-
There could be a papertrail for Ruth Barnes. If you do find a maintenance order then you at least have a potential father.
-
A lot would depend on where you came from and the class you were born into.
Our ancestors who were "common" ordinary folk, would unless very religious have had no problem with illegitimacy as many of them were probabyly never married in the first place or only married after 1st child was born.
But middle or upper class would have been totally different - an illegitimate child & its mother would in all probability have been turned out of the house (think of the beginning of Oliver Twist) and told never to darken their doorstep again. The stigma in these families would have been horrendous, not only for the unfortunate daugther, but all her siblings would have been "tarred with the same brush" and would have found it almost impossible to find suitable husbands and those who were willing to marry these sisters would have not been the most salubrious of characters. The parents would have been shunned by their contemporaries, and this could even have resulted in financial ruin for the family if people stopped "trading" with them in any wasy through banking or retail.
In out much more enlightened times, we do tend to be so far removed from this horror that it is often hard for us to comprehend. Even as late as the 60's & 70's it was still a problem, and I would imagine in some Catholice countries (like Southern Ireland) that the stigma is just as bad now as it was then.
-
That 3xgreat grandmother had an illegitimate child in 1863 and left the Sussex village shortly after to move to London.
-
Hi everyone,
Very interesting reading this topic. My great grandmother was illegitimate but it was never discussed. I never knew her but my mother did mention that she had a different name on her birth cert and we kind of deduced it from there.
Plummie girl i think you are wrong about illegitamacy being a stigma in Ireland today. My brother in law is living with a girl who has a child who is not his and he is very happy to do so. He adores the child as his own and his parents are fine with it to. They just said everyone seems to have a child and be unmarried these days. Unless you are a staunch catholic family i don`t think it is an issue. To be honest Ireland is only catholic in name these days and has greater things to worry about.
However as you rightly said in the past when the catholic church had more power it was a different story.
I could well imagine how some women who had illegitamate children in the past however felt they had to move in order to escape the shame and that by moving away they would give their child a better future.
have a lovely weekend everyone
Sarah
-
Coombs
I think it unlikely, I have a feeling if Ruth was maintained by a father she would have named him on her marriage cert, but its worth investigating.
I think most family historians will have found at least a handful of illegitimate births in their trees - and a lot of baptisms that came suspiciously close to weddings!
-
Yet going back further and higher up....the bar sinister on a family crest denotes a bastard branch of a family. Also, there were many families who boasted the Fitz on the front of their family name.
Leonie.
-
Coombs
I think it unlikely, I have a feeling if Ruth was maintained by a father she would have named him on her marriage cert, but its worth investigating.
I think most family historians will have found at least a handful of illegitimate births in their trees - and a lot of baptisms that came suspiciously close to weddings!
When you say suspiciously close do you mean after of before the weddings?
-
Also, there were many families who boasted the Fitz on the front of their family name.
Originally Fitz simply meant "son of" it was only much later that it was used in some cases to show that a child had a link to powerful or Royal households through illegitimate descendancy. So not every family that had fitz in their surname descended from an illegitimate son.
-
In Scotland you will often see marriage under Warrant, which in my view was the womans recourse for when she found she was pregnant and the father would not automatically want to marry her, although he was part of the reason why she was in this way. Sometimes they could be arrested and marched to the church.
Spoke to my mum yesterday and she mentioned my grandad had two brothers, actually he had three. His parents married under warrant when she was 19 (grgran) he was abt 32 funnily enough the same year just on 8/9mnths she had william. But I dont think he survived the year. must look for his death cert. It will now be available to view.
My nan was illegitimate and it plagued her all her life that her father did not want her, that s how she saw it and yet he was also the father of her sister, difference being by this time they had married.
marcie
-
In Scotland you will often see marriage under Warrant, which in my view was the womans recourse for when she found she was pregnant and the father would not automatically want to marry her, although he was part of the reason why she was in this way. Sometimes they could be arrested and marched to the church.
Sorry but that is wrong.
Scots law recognised several forms of what became known as "irregular marriage" which continued into the 20th century. When civil registration came into being in 1855 several mechanisms were introduced to allow the registration of these marriages if the participants wished to do so. Marriage by Sheriff's Warrant was a pre cursor to the modern day marriage at a Registry Office - it simply meant that the participants had declared their marriage in one of the accepted forms (usually a declaration in front of witnesses) and then they had 90 days in which to present their proof of marriage to a local sheriff who, if satisfied that the marriage was genuine, issued a warrant "In Declarator" and the marriage could be registered in the normal fashion.
-
When my gggran was born illegitimate her mum left the village with a man and they married in London shortly afterwards. The husband had been living not too far from her and was a servant.
Finding a very likely father is pot luck with illegitimacy.
-
Thankyou all for your comments....all very interesting.
Regards Chris
-
I think the problem here is those that never knew the father's name. Like those who have been born via sperm donation or during wars, you hear of many who wish to know who the parent(s) were. In today's world with medical advances sometimes it is critical to know the medical history of both parents.Lookin2
-
Coombs
I mean the baptism of a child will often be just a few weeks after the marriage!
My gt x 3 grandmother (unfortunately called Honor!) got married in St Columb Register Office in 1852 and her first child was baptised 3 weeks later. I also have gt x 3 grandparents who had their first child baptised within days of their marriage - and whose daughter, my gt x 2 grandmother, was the mother of Ruth, who I mentioned earlier.
-
So you mean the parents waited until after the wedding to baptise the child.
-
I came across one case in which the child was christened on the same day as the wedding!
Carmela
-
I have one where the parents baptised the child 4 months after the marriage at the same church and the child was 10 months old.
-
my nan was registered 3 days before Janet married the father.
Is it true that if she had waited until after the marriage that my nan would have been legally registered or does it still take him to agree that he was the father to make that happen.
I know that when my nan married my grandad that they had registered and then they had to go somewhere to sign the register and make it legally binding. I think she said a magistrate/ or perhaps it was the Sherriff,but now am not sure.
marcie
-
I've come to the conclusion that among the working classes illegitimacy was really quite accepted. The middle classes are quite different. It seems that when there was property and money involved the girls were "guarded" a lot more.
Carole
-
Your reference to a sheriff makes me think you are talking about Scotland?
In England the father is assumed to be the mother's husband if she's married.
If the parents aren't married both have to register the birth.
You can retrospectively re-register your children as legitimate if you marry after their births but not sure when that rule came into place.
-
I think in the 1940's it was frowned upon to be illegitimate not so much in the 1800's as long as the woman could support the family if however she fell on hard ties and could not support the family this would have been frowned on deeply.
-
I suppose different areas had different attitudes to it.
As said a daughter of a labourer having an illegitimate baby may have been accepted as opposed to the daughter of a doctor, wheelwright or lawyer.
-
My OH's family were comfortably off tradesmen/businessmen for a good 200 years, and nothing has appeared in the records that the Church might have frowned at. No illegitimacy, no baptisms less than a good nine months after marriage. But my lot .... being a bit more common-like .... well, its quite a different story ;D
Carole
-
When I first started my tree, I spoke to my grandmothers eldest surviving sister (10 years older than Gran).
I asked her (in all innocence, I was just a teenager and very naive) when she got married, and when her eldest child was born. It appears she was married on the Saturday, and her son was born on the Monday/Tuesday! Her words to me were "but we were married when he was born so it was ok"!
My Gran later told me it was in the depression in the 1920's and her sister's intended was out of work. It wasn't that they didn't want to get married, but they couldn't afford the penny for the marriage licence.
What makes me laugh now looking back is that my g/aunt was so prim and proper and sanctimonious. She frowned upon anyone who had a child without being married!
EeyoreBlue
-
]
Your reference to a sheriff makes me think you are talking about Scotland?
If the parents aren't married both have to register the birth.
You can retrospectively re-register your children as legitimate if you marry after their births but not sure when that rule came into place.
Yes at a cost payable to the registrar. Which is why a lot of people did not bother to do it.
I sometimes wonder if a girl child is born illegitimate, then her mother could be chastised as being of loose morals and her daughter when grown is almost expected to be of the same typical person, or wrongly be assumed to be. Dependant upon the era.
-
I've come to the conclusion that among the working classes illegitimacy was really quite accepted. girls
Carole
I think you're right, the Parish records for Stanhope/St Johns Chapel, a lead mining area, are full of baptisms for illegitimate children. My 3xgreat grandparents had 10 daughters who between them produced at least 5 illegitimate children and one narrow squeek, birth was registered Sept Q 1852 and the parents married 14 June 1852.
-
If the mother married someone else other than the father which of course did happen then if the man bought them up and nurtured them then he was the father, just not biologically and would be considered more than just a "stepfather".
-
My own theory is that among the rural labouring classes around 1800, the "stigma" with illegitimacy was more economic than moral. If a woman didn't have a man to provide for her and the child, she'd be a burden to her family and/or the Parish. There are so many cases of people marrying shortly before a birth that the notion of a young couple having sex before marriage was not entirely unknown ;) but if they didn't marry, the woman was at the mercy of others to provide for her or look after her child so that she could work. I've also seen many cases where a single woman with a child marries someone else so these "unmarried mothers" weren't entirely outcast in the social sense. Their children might be taunted with the label "bastard" of course, which is why we see C19th marriage certificates naming invented fathers.
For wealthier families around 1800, I think it was more moral than economic. It was a huge factor in social status and a woman who had an illegitimate child could seriously affect the family's social standing. An example of this is to be found in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice where a gentleman's daughter elopes with an Army officer. The family are frantic to find them and get them married because if they don't, the daughter will be "lost" to them and her sisters' chances of making "good" marriages will be significantly reduced.
However, the bastard child of a gentleman might still make a reasonable marriage and be accepted in society. Another Austen example of this is in "Emma", where the supposed "natural" daughter of a gentleman is considered (by Emma, a wealthy Gentleman's daughter) to be good enough to marry the vicar.
-
i have found a few illegitimate relatives while searching,including my own dad,his mother was married in 1939,my dad born 1949,bbut at the registration of the birth her husband AND the man who was my fathers birth father were both present,was this a usual thing to happen,i never knew my grandmothers husband,but did visit my dads father weekly over the years,i just think it strange that there was never any mention of the husband but the father stayed around his illegitimate child for mamy years
another granny had an illigitemate child in 1942,this man was never put on the birth cert,but she later married my grandad who took on the child as his own this poor child died in 1944,and id never heard of him until my mother mentioned him yearsa ago when i said i was doing my family tree,but didnt find out about the circumstances of his birth and death until recently.nobody else in the family spoke of this other child so there maybe was some stigma attatched to his birth somewhere along the line.
-
What I've noticed with my (rather humble) ancestors is that, in the early to mid 1800s, most women had a child a couple of years before the marriage and almost certainly not because of the man they married.
What seems to have happened is that the child was brought up by the stepfather, used the stepfather's surname, and then in adult life, reverted to their registered surname (their mother's). On marriage they all (at least the females) gave an obviously fictitious father's name - presumably for appearances. It's interesting, to me at least, that they generally gave their grandfather's name. Assuming that they really weren't the result of incest, I suppose it's the nearest genuine male relative with the right surname (and often conveniently deceased!)
Angela
-
that they generally gave their grandfather's name. Assuming that they really weren't the result of incest, I suppose it's the nearest genuine male relative with the right surname (and often conveniently deceased!)
That is exactly what my gran's half neice did. ::) She obviously knew her mother wasn't married, especially as she lived with her gran (my gran's mother) and her half aunt and uncle who were of a similar age to her.
Lizzie
-
Hi I found this interesting as my grandmother gave birth to my uncle Bill in 1923 in rural Lincolnshire (he was illegitimate) he was always made to stand outside when ever my grandmother visited anyone's house in the area!!?? People in the area had the view it would bring bad luck to there doorstep she was not welcome to visit at all when he was a baby!!?? Even when she married in 1927 no one would let my Uncle in there house for fear they might end up with someone pregnant and not married!!?... My Uncle always lived a life angry at not being good enough!!?? but the good thing is he and his first wife fostered around 50 children but he never had any of his own Carolyn xx
-
Reminds me of when I told my mother, a moderately strait laced bible basher, that her Grandfather had no fathers name on his birth cert and her look of horror! She was so shocked that I haven’t got the heart to tell her that on his marr cert both her Grandfather and Grandmother have blank fathers! Shouldn’t laugh really.....
-
my nan felt the same about herself being born in 1911 although her mother married her father after she was born and she was given the name steel or smith. she never felt that she deserved it. as if it was her fault.
-
Would it not make sense if a stigma existed it was because a person's self esteem?
If born in a society where children are accepted by the the adults in the society whether or not the parents were married then the stigma may exist at a much lower level than in some other societies. To be labeled as being illegitimate would have been a label attached to a person by other people. I wonder if the existents of the stigma would be more prevalent when people in a society felt a need to support their own ego at the expense of others. Example "You're a bastard I'm not" inferring I'm better than you are. But if someone knew they were born of parents that loved each other and did a good job of teaching their children the stigma may not exist at all or at a very low level until exposed to criticism by others.
Any one that carries the stigma with them throughout their life would undoubtedly have low self-esteem. A person deemed illegitimate but with a high level of self esteem could respond to judgmental people with the words "I might be from parents that were not recognized by a church or the state as being married but I have no need to support my ego at the expense of others. If being a 'bastard' lowers me in your eyes then remember it is I that has the advantage and not you. I might be a bastard but I'm not an idiot!"
-
I would agreewith that in part I am one of those whose parents were not married, luckily it did not have the samr effect upon me as it did on my nan because I had a loving family around me, she had her mother whodid nor show real affection and her father did not want to know for appearance sake but his brother Thomas took my nan and placed her in a home when the marriage looked as though it was falling apart and her cousins in their finery always put her down and rurned rheir backs on her they had a rolls Royce, cotton bloomers and sik ribbons when my nan was barefoot. and in rags
-
Yet going back further and higher up....the bar sinister on a family crest denotes a bastard branch of a family. Also, there were many families who boasted the Fitz on the front of their family name.
Leonie.
Sorry but there is no such thing as a bar sinister, that was an invention by Sir Walter Scott.
The designation Bend sinister (sinister Latin for left, Dexter for right) merely refers to the direction of the stripe. The french heraldic term for a Bend is Barre.
I should also point out in English Heraldry there is no mark of difference for bastardy.
Cheers
Guy
-
My husband's grandmother was born in January 1900 and her certificate has illegitimate written clearly. However, her father died just before Christmas, on 20th December 1899, aged 39 and left his widow with their three daughters aged 10, 6 and 3 and Margaret arrived three weeks after her father died. As a result, his name was never on her certificate even though she shared the same parents as her sisters. I can only imagine what life was like for the family over Christmas, New Year, and having a baby whilst mourning the loss of your husband and provider. I have not found the family on the 1901 census but I am still investigating. Margaret grew up with a sense of shame because she was classed as an illegitimate child.
-
My husband's grandmother was born in January 1900 and her certificate has illegitimate written clearly. However, her father died just before Christmas, on 20th December 1899, aged 39 and left his widow with their three daughters aged 10, 6 and 3 and Margaret arrived three weeks after her father died. As a result, his name was never on her certificate even though she shared the same parents as her sisters. I can only imagine what life was like for the family over Christmas, New Year, and having a baby whilst mourning the loss of your husband and provider. I have not found the family on the 1901 census but I am still investigating. Margaret grew up with a sense of shame because she was classed as an illegitimate child.
If your husband's grandfather was the married & cohabiting with his wife before his death, his death would not make their child illegitimate (assuming they lived in the UK).
There must be some reason why the certificate was marked illegitimate.
Had the husband and wife split up, was the husband working away for instance?
Under UK law the husband is always assumed to be the father of a child unless it can be shown he had no access to the mother during the relative time period.
The correct procedure would be to mark it as a posthumous birth.
Cheers
Guy
-
The correct procedure would be to mark it as a posthumous birth.
Cheers
Guy
Firstly , welcome to Rootschat .......
Secondly I agree with Guy, my grandfather's birth certificate from 1899 shows his father as deceased at the time of his birth (my great grandfather died from blood poisoning 2 months before the birth)
-
I did hear that illegitimacy was not so frowned upon in villages than towns. However, in towns it was easier to cover up baseborn children.
I think it could depend on the area and status if illegitimacy was a stigma or not.
-
Thanks for sharing that information. My father in law only remembers how upset his mother was as being labelled as illegitimate. I assumed that since her father wasn't present at the birth, that this was the reason. Up until this point, I had issues tracing my own family tree lines so had put more effort in to my husband's side as that was so much more straight forward. The children were named after grandparents on each side and all appeared to be married prior to the arrival of children. On one line, they were all coal miners and shuffled between streets close to the mines with daughters that married sons of existing miners. Reading up on the history of scottish miners has been interesting and sad as there was no health and safety back then.
Could I upload her birth certificate for you to have a look and see if you can spot something that this novice missed?
-
I wonder if the stigma of illegitimacy accounts for the fact that a paternal g.aunt's illegitimate child remained with her grandparents when her mother moved out and married someone who wasn't the child's father, as did a maternal g.aunt's illegitimate child. That case was slightly different in that my g.aunt and her boyfriend as he was then, lived in the same house as he was employed by her father. Although she had the baby, her father refused to let her marry (she was only 17 when she had her baby) because he didn't like the boyfriend. Her father died soon afterwards and they did marry, although her father was right as my g.aunt became a battered wife - of course in the late 1800s/early 1900s she just put up with it and kept on having more and more children.
-
Slightly later but my grandmother had two illegitimate children in the 1920s - neither of them has the word 'illegitimate' on their birth certificate - there is simply a line drawn through the space for the father's details
-
Children born out of wedlock in the 1800's had father's names written in Baptismal Register :)
or Unknown. Some priests wrote Bastard or Illegitimate beside the Baby's name :'(
Roman Catholic in Ireland
-
its not just the 1800s' my nan was illigitemate because her mother did not get msrried to my nans father until she first registered my nan on the 13thjanuary 1912 and then married george on the 15th january 1912 she obviously was not thinking of my nan when she did this it was more to do with what the law stated than anything else. my nan was borne on 23rd dec. the holdays started almost immediately and the registry office did not re-open until about a week after the beg of the new year, dso she did not rush to register her its a shame that se did not rush to get married either and legitimise my nans birth my nan felt this fact thr whole of her life. I followed suit my mm refused to marry my dad , but when she eventually explained to me i agrred that she did the right thing.
-
For those who have access to newspaper files, and want some insight into the lengths that a brother and sister from "a respectable family" went to cover up their sibling's indiscretion, look up Child Murder at Exeter 1879. They hatched an elaborate plan to keep the birth secret so that the family would not be tainted by association. Even the the parents were kept in the dark. I'm sure the sister was motivated to conceal her younger sister's illegitimate child because she had a family of seven children, the eldest of whom was a daughter aged 19, and she felt her marriage prospects would be blighted.
The plan went terribly wrong when the dismembered body of the child was discovered their unfortunate sibling was arrested as an accessory before the fact and dragged into court.
The story ran over a few weeks from June to August 1879 starting with the twists and turns of the detective investigation and ending with all the minute details of the murderer's last hours before execution. Mob mentality, unfounded rumours, false names, disguises, and unintended consequences abound. Victorian sensationalism at it's finest.
The final little twist to this tale is that the husband of the sister who cooked up the scheme, including forbidding her sister from having any contact with the child, was actually base born himself being the youngest of a large family whose parents were never married. Luckily the journalists missed that fact.
I have only recently discovered this story and it is the most interesting family history story I have found in my research so far. What I have not found is a GRO Death Certificate reference for the child, either under the false name it was registered with in 1878, or the legal surname it should have been given as the child of an unmarried mother. Also there is no clue as to who the father of the child was.
Venelow
Canada
-
In the early 1800's. attitudes with Country folk seem a lot more liberal. Perhaps they thought that another child would add more income to the household with either the boys becoming ag labs or the girls strawplaiters at an early age. I have one girl plaiting at 5 years old.
The stigma of having a child out of wedlock was surely something perpetuated later by Victorian attitudes.
-
I agree with you Stevew101 :D
I have spent some time in the past few weeks at the Isle of Man Museum's Library.
I was studying "Presentments", which were the twice-yearly reports from a parish to the Bishop of Sodor & Man.
These invariably included "Presentments for Fornication":
"The Vicar/Rector & Wardens present Ann Smith for the crime of Fornication; an illegitimate child born".
The woman was supposed to attend a Chapter Court hearing to be admonished, and she had to swear an oath on "the Evangelistic Texts" naming the father of her child.
(Very useful for us genealogists!)
But many failed to appear.
Many women appeared more than once, over the years!
So it doesn't appear that any stigma was attached?
-
I agree, the stigma was more something that grew in the Victorian era and sadly continues I'm many people today.
What really infuriates me is the way society seems to seek to punish the child, label the child and make them an outcast. I mean even if you accept that getting pregnant outside marriage was the most heinous crime ever (which personally I don't) the child didn't chose to be conceived.
-
In the early 1800's. attitudes with Country folk seem a lot more liberal. Perhaps they thought that another child would add more income to the household with either the boys becoming ag labs or the girls strawplaiters at an early age. I have one girl plaiting at 5 years old.
The stigma of having a child out of wedlock was surely something perpetuated later by Victorian attitudes.
I'm not sure how much 'thought' went into having 'another child' in the early 1800s. Abstinence was the only reliable way to exercise birth control then. There were various bits of folklore (which may persist), and most clerics encouraged everyone to go forth and multiply. Birth and baptism records show that most families did just that, typically chalking up eight or (several) more children unless the unfortunate wife died early in childbirth - in which case the widower often continued with no.2.
And as you say, stigma probably only became strong in the Victorian era. Parishes didn't like having to support base-born children sired by a father from next-door, and sometimes issued bastardy orders to offset the expense. But I'm sure there was a good deal of off-limits conception, especially at harvest-time :)
-
My husband's grandmother was born in January 1900 and her certificate has illegitimate written clearly. However, her father died just before Christmas, on 20th December 1899, aged 39 and left his widow with their three daughters aged 10, 6 and 3 and Margaret arrived three weeks after her father died. As a result, his name was never on her certificate even though she shared the same parents as her sisters. I can only imagine what life was like for the family over Christmas, New Year, and having a baby whilst mourning the loss of your husband and provider. I have not found the family on the 1901 census but I am still investigating. Margaret grew up with a sense of shame because she was classed as an illegitimate child.
My great-grandmother was also born three weeks after her father's death and she was not recorded as illegitimate. She did however have an illegitimate sister three years younger than her.
-
My husband's grandmother was born in January 1900 and her certificate has illegitimate written clearly. However, her father died just before Christmas, on 20th December 1899, aged 39 and left his widow with their three daughters aged 10, 6 and 3 and Margaret arrived three weeks after her father died. As a result, his name was never on her certificate even though she shared the same parents as her sisters. I can only imagine what life was like for the family over Christmas, New Year, and having a baby whilst mourning the loss of your husband and provider. I have not found the family on the 1901 census but I am still investigating. Margaret grew up with a sense of shame because she was classed as an illegitimate child.
My great-grandmother was also born three weeks after her father's death and she was not recorded as illegitimate. She did however have an illegitimate sister three years younger than her.
Seems a bit harsh when her father had only died a month earlier
-
My g.grandmother had her 6th child with her first husband in 1878 and the birth certificate shows the father's name and "deceased" next to it. I would have thought this was more normal, and can't imagine why, if the child was her husband's, the mother didn't give her husband as the father, stating that he had recently died. So perhaps, tinytears9, your husband's grandmother was illegitimate. Her mother's husband may have been ill for some time before he died and his mother sought solace elsewhere.
-
I've found some differing attitudes to illegitimacy within my family. Some go to lengths to cover it up - grandparents pretending the child is theirs, invented fathers on marriage certificates. And some don't seem to bother. (Maybe the whole village knew the truth so there was no point trying to lie?)
My great-great-grandfather became a respectable businessman in London, but was born out of wedlock into a rural family in the late 1860s. On the 1881 census he takes his stepfather's surname. When he marries, he uses his real surname, and pretends his stepfather is his real father but changes the surname to match his own!
Without a time machine I'll never know if the "stigma" of illegitimacy followed him throughout his adult life, and how hard he lied to cover it up. It certainly didn't hold him back.
-
Apparently Ramsey Macdonald was born illigitimate. I wonder if the other candidates brought this up during campaigning.
-
My great, great gran was born in December 1863 in a pretty remote Sussex village and the mother seemed to be still living with her wheelwright father and his wife at home and registered the birth as illegitimate. The father has been identified through other records. Maybe it was the same as Claire's case, everyone may have known so no point in lying.
-
its not just the 1800s' my nan was illigitemate because her mother did not get msrried to my nans father until she first registered my nan on the 13thjanuary 1912 and then married george on the 15th january 1912 she obviously was not thinking of my nan when she did this it was more to do with what the law stated than anything else. my nan was borne on 23rd dec. the holdays started almost immediately and the registry office did not re-open until about a week after the beg of the new year, dso she did not rush to register her its a shame that se did not rush to get married either and legitimise my nans birth my nan felt this fact thr whole of her life. I followed suit my mm refused to marry my dad , but when she eventually explained to me i agrred that she did the right thing.
It is the marital status at the time of the birth that is relevant when registering a birth. So even if she had delayed registering the birth until after the wedding, the registration would still have been completed as that of an unmarried couple, assuming she answered the registrar's questions correctly ( which of course some people don't).
-
It is the marital status at the time of the birth that is relevant when registering a birth. So even if she had delayed registering the birth until after the wedding, the registration would still have been completed as that of an unmarried couple, assuming she answered the registrar's questions correctly ( which of course some people don't).
In Scotland the situation is slightly different in that providing there was no impediment to marriage and the parents subsequently did marry then the birth of the child was automatically legitimised.
The additional stigma of having the word "illegitimate" on any birth certificate was also later removed by a change in the law whether the parents of the child went on to marry or not.
-
From 1837 to 1850 if a putative father was named he could be entered on the register of a birth, a common myth is that applied until 1874 but Dixon's BMD site said from 1850 onwards no father was to be put in the entry for an illegitimate birth. Of course from 1874 (or 1 Jan 1875) if the father was present he could put his name down if not wed to the mother.