Reason for marriage

[kerryb]

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

[Pels.]

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  

[Biker]

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

[KathMc]

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. 

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

[casalguidi]

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

[ozlady]

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........

[subee]

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.......

[7igerby7he7ail]

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].

[ninkynoo]

Yes ,I too have quite a few.......I call them "Try before You Buy" ... that way the chap is sure he's got a fertile bride.
Lin