RootsChat.Com

Ireland (Historical Counties) => Ireland => Armagh => Topic started by: plumpyone on Thursday 31 March 22 14:16 BST (UK)

Title: 1830s RC baptisms - illegitimate children
Post by: plumpyone on Thursday 31 March 22 14:16 BST (UK)
I have identified two possible ancestors however their baptism records are puzzling me - both were baptised in the same church in the 1830s however in both cases they have been recorded as illegitimate however they have been baptised with their fathers surname and the father has been named. 
I've attached one of the examples, the other is Stephen McConnell with father Moses McConnell

Is it unusual for a child to be baptised with the fathers name and also recorded as illegitimate?  Could it be that the parents were a mixed marriage which was not recognised by the Catholic Church so children were recorded as illegitimate? 

just curious - thanks

Moderator comment: image removed to prevent breach of copyright
Title: Re: 1830s RC baptisms - illegitimate children
Post by: athacliath62 on Thursday 31 March 22 14:32 BST (UK)
the baptism (NLI 5587/03 page 32) does not give the surname of the child - just the parents, the transcript seems to be assuming the father's surname, ' illegitimate' is written between, and slightly above, the child's name and the father's details.
Title: Re: 1830s RC baptisms - illegitimate children
Post by: heywood on Thursday 31 March 22 14:39 BST (UK)
The baptism register is marked illegitimate
https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000632609#page/32/mode/1up
Title: Re: 1830s RC baptisms - illegitimate children
Post by: Elwyn Soutter on Thursday 31 March 22 22:33 BST (UK)
With some illegitimate births the father was present and in that case his name would be recorded. There was no requirement to be married for the father's name to be recorded in the baptism register. I have seen other baptisms where where the father wasn't present, and it says "reputed father...." If the  baptism record says illegitimate, I think you can assume that's what it was. Nothing to do with a mixed marriage.
Title: Re: 1830s RC baptisms - illegitimate children
Post by: Jon_ni on Friday 01 April 22 13:21 BST (UK)
Plumpyone

Upload of images from RootsIreland is not permitted here per their Terms and Conditions and RootsChat rules.
RootsIreland state "You may not share information taken from this website on social media, including, but not exclusively, screen grabs or transcripts – this is intellectual theft. Failure to adhere to this simple request will see the immediate suspension of Roots Ireland accounts and possible legal action. This also includes administrators of social media pages and other websites which allow this fraudulent practice." https://www.rootsireland.ie/terms-and-conditions/
Title: Re: 1830s RC baptisms - illegitimate children
Post by: Maggsie on Friday 01 April 22 13:43 BST (UK)
Another thing is, if the lady was pregnant at the time of marriage, then the Priest would insert illegitimate as the child was conceived before the marriage.
The Priest would work out the child's Date of Birth work back 9 months. Boy oh God help you if the baby was premature!
Check the marriage date, I should image there were married.
Maggsie   
Title: Re: 1830s RC baptisms - illegitimate children
Post by: Maiden Stone on Friday 01 April 22 22:20 BST (UK)
Another thing is, if the lady was pregnant at the time of marriage, then the Priest would insert illegitimate as the child was conceived before the marriage.
The Priest would work out the child's Date of Birth work back 9 months. Boy oh God help you if the baby was premature!


Do you have evidence?
I know that "begotten in fornication" was on some Scottish baptism registers (Presbyterian).
A baby born to married parents was legitimate unless one of the parents claimed and could prove otherwise.
 There may have been cases in which the bridegroom wasn't father of the baby the bride was expecting. If he'd been deliberately deceived into believing he was the father, and later found out he wasn't, he may have had grounds for annulment.   
Title: Re: 1830s RC baptisms - illegitimate children
Post by: Maggsie on Saturday 02 April 22 09:26 BST (UK)
Yes, many times I have found this.
When I see these, I check the marriage dates.
The Fathers name is never listed when they are not married.
Maggsie
Title: Re: 1830s RC baptisms - illegitimate children
Post by: aghadowey on Saturday 02 April 22 10:59 BST (UK)
I have seen baptisms (Catholic & Protestant) where the father of an illegitimate child is listed. In some registers there is almost always a father, or alledged father, named as though the officiant required a father's name before baptism would take place.
Title: Re: 1830s RC baptisms - illegitimate children
Post by: Jon_ni on Saturday 02 April 22 15:08 BST (UK)
There was a desire to identify fathers and prevent the burden of illegitimate children being born by the Poor Law and parish funds though that perhaps applies more to Established C of I than Catholic records.
"By an act of 1576 (Elizabeth), it was ordered that bastards should be supported by their putative fathers. If the genitor could be found, then he was put under very great pressure to accept responsibility and to maintain the child."
Although for England does provide background https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Illegitimacy_in_England

Catholic Canon Law:
Can. 1138 §1. The father is he whom a lawful marriage indicates unless clear evidence proves the contrary.
§2. Children born at least 180 days after the day when the marriage was celebrated or within 300 days from the day of the dissolution of conjugal life are presumed to be legitimate.
Can. 1139 Illegitimate children are legitimated by the subsequent valid or putative marriage of their parents or by a rescript of the Holy See.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html

The Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law declares that if a child is born into a legitimate marriage, that child is legitimate. The father of the child is the mother's husband unless clear evidence proves otherwise. The child, however, does not have to be conceived within wedlock to be considered legitimate. If a child is born at least 180 days after the wedding, the child is considered legitimate. Similarly, if a child is born no more than 300 days after a divorce, the child is considered legitimate.
https://classroom.synonym.com/children-out-of-wedlock-the-catholic-church-12085888.html