The greater shame?

[catwomyn]

I'm wondering how shameful an illegitimate child would be in poor, working class rural societies in the 1860s...

An ancestor Jane SHINGLER was about 17 and unmarried when she had her daughter in 1862, but her daughter was registered at birth as Lizzie Harriman SHINGLER. I'm certain her father was Matthew HARRIMAN - haven't sent off for birth cert but the middle name gives it away a bit!

Jane and Matthew married in 1866. I'm pretty sure Matthew wasn't married to someone else in 1862 as he was unmarried in the 1861 census (as was Jane).

The only reason I can therefore think of for them not marrying before Lizzie was born is that Jane's parents wouldn't give consent, as she was under 21. But it follows that they must've really disapproved for them to prefer to have an illegitimate granddaughter...

Has anyone encountered anything similar, or have other ideas as to why they didn't just lie about their ages? I really wish I could go back in time and ask Jane & Matthew why they didn't marry for four years!

Cat

[margeyorkshire]

hi
possible that the father was away and they got married when he got back home or could they have been living together pretending to be married?
Lots of illigitimate children around then but think they used to cover it up as much as possible not really sure.  If you can get to she the parish record sometimes the clergy made remarks in the register is the child was illegitimate.
good luck
 

[Sylviaann]

I have a family who had 2 children before they were married.  On the census the wife is under her married name.  All very confusing.  No idea why they waited except that it cost money to get married which they didn't have.  This is more common than you think and I don't think most ordinary people were too bothered about it

Sylviaann

[Aulus]

I agree - it's one of the things that has surprised me doing this research - how little it seems to have mattered.

Before I started finding all the illegitimates, I'd assumed that the further back in time you went, the greater the shame would be.  But my estimate is that the peak of shamefulness for illegitimacy was in the first half of the 20th century.

[meles]

I think it was pretty commonplace - at least it is in my tree which is almost entirely ag labs.

I assume it was not shameful, although probably frowned upon - certainly most of the baptisms have "base born" or some such. But not always.

meles

[Sloe Gin]

I think in many places, especially rural communities, it was normal for couples to "walk out" until there was a pregnancy, and then they would marry! 

People had a very pragmatic attitude to life: they would want to have children and it was necessary for the survival of the community, so they would make sure they were with a fertile partner.  And if nothing happened, they might call it a day and go see if they would "catch" with someone else.

Eventually the Victorian "moral" attitudes percolated down though, and these remained with us until fairly recently.

[Siamese Girl]

My perfectly respectable gt gt grandparents produced one child about a year before marrying in 1868. They lived in a small town in Oxfordshire but went to London to marry. I was a bit nervous about telling my elderly aunt this but she just said "oh, everyone knows Lizzie was born before they married" but couldn't come with any explaination WHY they didn't get married earlier ! 

Carole

[sem73]

Hi All

My late grandfather had a close call! ....... he was born 1st June 1913 a full 24 hrs after his parents walked down the aisle!! 

Sarah

[Kevinshouse]

My 2 x grandfather was a widow aged 54 years when a girl called Martha moved into his home to be a servant! They had 7 children together (one my g grandfather) and did not marry until Martha was pregnant with their 7th child. My 2 x g grandfather was a farmer employing men and also a constable of the parish a pillar of the community, it did not seem to worry him that he had 6 illegitimate children ,they were all named in his will.  By the way he was 34 years older than Martha.

Regards Susan