RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Yorkshire Rose on Saturday 06 November 10 15:26 GMT (UK)
-
I have just discovered that my Grandma (Roman Catholic) was born illegitimately.
There is no fathers name on her birth certificate.
I have her mother's and what I though was her father's marriage certificate date 26th December 1898.
She was born 4th June 1898 a good 6 month before her 'parents' marriage.
Evidence on census records show she also had a brother 3 years older than her.
My question is this. How would her mother have been treated being a Roman Catholic and an unmarried mother of 2 children.
-
hello yorkshire rose
i,m about to put the cat among the pigeons i think i,m afraid i couldn,t not reply to your post , i would think back then that what occured would have been virtually enough to get her excommunicated the priests i would think would have been mortified with such goings on , i have never forgotten what my own parents went through when they wanted to get married as because my father was anglican but mum was catholic they said that if dad didn,t convert they couldn,t marry in a catholic ch and as all mums family were catholic and went to ch and catholic school,ve always felt that they were harshly dealt with so married in dads parish with no probs at all , thankfully those days are long gone and a more relaxed attitude reigns thankfully and the hell and damnation set are also long gone .
trevor
-
Hello,
I'm not so sure at all. We have family members who were very faithful Roman Catholics (early 1900s) who had one child 2 years before marriage and one immediately after the marriage. They were married in their local Catholic Church.
We have no idea why they waited to marry other than they were very poor and that may have been an influence on the delay.
As regards Trevor's point, mixed marriages were something different :o As regards those, I can only speak of my parents generation really and the attitude then was conversion or ....
Nowadays, there would be just great rejoicing if a couple chose to get married in many cases :D
heywood
-
I think religion, Roman Catholic or Anglican, was a lot more influential in those days. But pragmatism was also abundant. After the shock and doubtless recriminations, they moved on.
I have several illegitimate births in my tree (they were Anglicans and Quakers), and they all seem to have got married later and flourished.
I think in more recent times people were harsher, and we have seen the "Who do you think you are?" programmes where illegitimate births in the 20's and 30's led to the mothers being put in metal homes and the children being fostered/adopted/sent to Australia.
And in modern times, there is little stigma (although some political parties seem to have rather old-fashioned views ::))
I think you can deduce how people reacted when you explore their lives. Did your illegitimate ancestor marry? Marry well, or to someone a little surprising? That, I think will show you how people thought of them at that time.
meles
-
What if my fiancé(e) is not a Catholic / Christian?
You are free to marry a Christian of another denomination, but should bear in mind that you will be asked to undertake to bring your children up as Catholics. Your fiancé(e) would not be put under any obligation to assist with this, but should at least consent to your doing so.
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Catholic-Church/how_do_i/Get-married-in-the-Catholic-Church
Stan
-
I have several illegitimate births in my tree (they were Anglicans and Quakers), and they all seem to have got married later and flourished.
And in modern times, there is little stigma (although some political parties seem to have rather old-fashioned views ::))
I think you can deduce how people reacted when you explore their lives. Did your illegitimate ancestor marry? Marry well, or to someone a little surprising? That, I think will show you how people thought of them at that time.
meles
In the annual report of the Registrar-General 1845, it was stated that in 1830 the baptisms and births returned were 399,324; illegitimate children 20,039. In 1842 births registered were 517,789; illegitimate children 34,796. In 1900 births registered were 927,062, with those outside marriage 36,814.
For the statistical minded:
From 1841 to 1905 the percentage of births outside marriage fell from 6.7% to 4% then was at 4 - 4.5 % until 1940 except for 1916-1920 when it was 5.4%. From 1941 to 1960 it averaged 5.5%. In 1961-5 it was 6.9% and 1996-2000 it was 37.8%.
Stan
-
I suspect that a lot would depend on the circumstances surrounding both births and the attitude of the parish priest. If the marriage certificate that you have shows a marriage in a Catholic Church then I think that you can probably assume that the mother was still a Catholic and accepted as such. Do you know if the man that she married was actually the father of either or both of her two children as that would also have a bearing on how things were seen? At this distance of time and without any other corroborating evidence I would be very wary of making too many assumptions of how this was viewed.
Stan's statistics are helpful but I suggest that there were also a significant number of brides who went to the altar pregnant - and known to be - and that there was some measure of acceptance that engaged couples who had shown an intention to marry were allowed a fair degree of licence. I'm sure that we can all find examples in our own family lines where this was clearly the case.
jds1949
-
Hi, Have often wondered about this.
My gr. grandmother had been married, hubby disappears. She then goes on to have 4 more children, all illigitmate.
This was in Edinburgh in the 1860`s, in the Cowgate. Have often wondered what she went through from the priests.
Mary
-
Thank you to you all for your replies.
My Gt. Grandmother did marry in a Catholic church and her children were all brought up in the faith.This was in Leeds West Yorkshire. Maybe the priests are more lenient in cities???
As the birth of my grandma and the marriage of my Gt. Grandma were so close together I think I may assume that the man she married was the father. Although if that is correct I can't understand why his name wasn't on the birth certificate.
Has anyone got a view on this.
-
According to T.V.H. Fitzhugh's "Dictionary of Genealogy" If a child was born out of wedlock the the father's name was generally omitted; but after 1875 if the father accompanied the mother to the registrar's office and claimed paternity he could have his name entered on the certificate. So, unless he went with your Gt. Grandmother to register the birth his name would not appear.
A further thought occurs to me - if at all possible it might well be worth trying to get a look at the baptism register as the father's name may well have been entered by the priest. I know that getting sight of Catholic Baptism registers is sometimes difficult as they tend not to be lodged in the local record office but remain in the care of the original church; but - technically speaking - I am assured that they are public documents and an appeal to the relevant priest might well give you the information/confirmation that you seek.
jds1949
-
Between 1837 and 1874 if the mother informed a registrar of an illegitimate child's birth and also stated a father's name, the registrar could record him as the father, although he may not have actually been the father
This applied until The Registration Act of 1874 which stated:
"The putative father of an illegitimate child cannot be required as father to give information respecting the birth. The name, surname and occupation of the putative father of an illegitimate child must not be entered except at the joint request of the father and mother; in which case both the father and mother must sign the entry as informants"
The Act came into force on 1st January 1875
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1874/pdf/ukpga_18740088_en.pdf
Stan