The Stigma of being illegitimate & female in 1800

[marcie dean]

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

[Siamese Girl]

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

[Jeuel]

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.

[toni*]

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.

[coombs]

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.

[Siamese Girl]

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 

Carole

[EeyoreBlue]

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

[marcie dean]

]
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.

[angelfish58]

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.