The Stigma of being illegitimate & female in 1800

[healyjfch]

Children born out of wedlock in the 1800's had father's names written in Baptismal Register
or Unknown. Some priests wrote Bastard or Illegitimate beside the Baby's name
Roman Catholic in Ireland

[marcie dean]

its not just the 1800s' my nan was illigitemate because her mother did not get msrried to my nans father until she first registered my nan on the 13thjanuary 1912 and then married george on the 15th january 1912 she obviously was not thinking of my nan when she did this it was more to do with what the law stated than anything else. my nan was borne on 23rd dec. the holdays started almost immediately and the registry office did not re-open until about a week after the beg of the new year, dso she did not rush to  register her its a shame that se did not rush to get married either and legitimise my nans birth my nan felt this fact thr whole of her life. I followed suit my mm refused to marry my dad , but when she eventually explained to me i agrred that she did the right thing.

[venelow]

For those who have access to newspaper files, and want some insight into the lengths that a brother and sister from "a respectable family" went to cover up their sibling's indiscretion, look up Child Murder at Exeter 1879. They hatched an elaborate plan to keep the birth secret so that the family would not be tainted by association.  Even the the parents were kept in the dark.  I'm sure the sister was motivated to conceal her younger sister's illegitimate child because she had a family of seven children, the eldest of whom was a daughter aged 19, and she felt her marriage prospects would be blighted.

The plan went terribly wrong when the dismembered body of the child was discovered their unfortunate sibling was arrested as an accessory before the fact and dragged into court.

The story ran over a few weeks from June to August 1879 starting with the twists and turns of the detective investigation and ending with all the minute details of the murderer's last hours before execution. Mob mentality, unfounded rumours, false names, disguises, and unintended consequences abound. Victorian sensationalism at it's finest.

The final little twist to this tale is that the husband of the sister who cooked up the scheme, including forbidding her sister from having any contact with the child, was actually base born himself being the youngest of a large family whose parents were never married. Luckily the journalists missed that fact.

I have only recently discovered this story and it is the most interesting family history story I have found in my research so far.  What I have not found is a GRO Death Certificate reference for the child, either under the false name it was registered with in 1878, or the legal surname it should have been given as the child of an unmarried mother. Also there is no clue as to who the father of the child was.

Venelow
Canada

[stevew101]

In the early 1800's. attitudes with Country folk seem a lot more liberal.  Perhaps they thought that another child would add more income to the household with either the boys becoming ag labs or the girls strawplaiters at an early age.  I have one girl plaiting at 5 years old.

The stigma of having a child out of wedlock was surely something perpetuated later by Victorian attitudes.

[KGarrad]

I agree with you Stevew101

I have spent some time in the past few weeks at the Isle of Man Museum's Library.
I was studying "Presentments", which were the twice-yearly reports from a parish to the Bishop of Sodor & Man.

These invariably included "Presentments for Fornication":
"The Vicar/Rector & Wardens present Ann Smith for the crime of Fornication; an illegitimate child born".

The woman was supposed to attend a Chapter Court hearing to be admonished, and she had to swear an oath on "the Evangelistic Texts" naming the father of her child.
(Very useful for us genealogists!)

But many failed to appear.

Many women appeared more than once, over the years!

So it doesn't appear that any stigma was attached?

[pharmaT]

I agree, the stigma was more something that grew in the Victorian era and sadly continues I'm many people today.

What really infuriates me is the way society seems to seek to punish the child, label the child and make them an outcast. I mean even if you accept that getting pregnant outside marriage was the most heinous crime ever (which personally I don't) the child didn't chose to be conceived.

[Andrew Tarr]

In the early 1800's. attitudes with Country folk seem a lot more liberal.  Perhaps they thought that another child would add more income to the household with either the boys becoming ag labs or the girls strawplaiters at an early age.  I have one girl plaiting at 5 years old.

The stigma of having a child out of wedlock was surely something perpetuated later by Victorian attitudes.

I'm not sure how much 'thought' went into having 'another child' in the early 1800s.  Abstinence was the only reliable way to exercise birth control then.  There were various bits of folklore (which may persist), and most clerics encouraged everyone to go forth and multiply.  Birth and baptism records show that most families did just that, typically chalking up eight or (several) more children unless the unfortunate wife died early in childbirth - in which case the widower often continued with no.2.

And as you say, stigma probably only became strong in the Victorian era.  Parishes didn't like having to support base-born children sired by a father from next-door, and sometimes issued bastardy orders to offset the expense.  But I'm sure there was a good deal of off-limits conception, especially at harvest-time 

[JAKnighton]

My husband's grandmother was born in January 1900 and her certificate has illegitimate written clearly. However, her father died just before Christmas, on 20th December 1899, aged 39 and left his widow with their three daughters aged 10, 6 and 3 and Margaret arrived three weeks after her father died. As a result, his name was never on her certificate even though she shared the same parents as her sisters. I can only imagine what life was like for the family over Christmas, New Year, and having a baby whilst mourning the loss of your husband and provider. I have not found the family on the 1901 census but I am still investigating. Margaret grew up with a sense of shame because she was classed as an illegitimate child.

My great-grandmother was also born three weeks after her father's death and she was not recorded as illegitimate. She did however have an illegitimate sister three years younger than her.

[pharmaT]

My husband's grandmother was born in January 1900 and her certificate has illegitimate written clearly. However, her father died just before Christmas, on 20th December 1899, aged 39 and left his widow with their three daughters aged 10, 6 and 3 and Margaret arrived three weeks after her father died. As a result, his name was never on her certificate even though she shared the same parents as her sisters. I can only imagine what life was like for the family over Christmas, New Year, and having a baby whilst mourning the loss of your husband and provider. I have not found the family on the 1901 census but I am still investigating. Margaret grew up with a sense of shame because she was classed as an illegitimate child.

My great-grandmother was also born three weeks after her father's death and she was not recorded as illegitimate. She did however have an illegitimate sister three years younger than her.

Seems a bit harsh when her father had only died a month earlier