Fornication and baptism

[Guy Etchells]

I do like the way the forum drifts off considering the 18th century with 20th/21st century eyes.

I would suggest the original posting is looked at again, and consider what the register is actually stating.

In Scotland at that time a couple could marry simply by habit and repute.
I.E. If they considered they were married and they lived together as if married then they were legally married.

This couple for whatever reasons they had did not consider they were married, hence the comment.

The question is why did the couple not consider themselves married?
Cheers
Guy

[majm]

Thanks Guy,  I had been considering posting along the same lines.... Obviously the children's parents had not entered into any of these Scottish forms of marriage:

1.Irregular marriage by declaration de presenti—Declaring in the presence of two witnesses that one takes someone as one's wife or husband.
2.Irregular marriage conditional on consummation.
3.Marriage contracted by correspondence.
4.Irregular marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute


Cheers,  JM

[Wiggy]

You make an excellent point Guy!

It is very hard to think ourselves back to those morés  (?sp  - well, that is how it is pronounced anyhow!!   ) isn't it!   

JM - I think my daughter and partner fall into category 4!

Wiggy

[majm]

Wiggy,

I have some Scottish heritage, on both my main lines...  I was just trying to find the way to express myself,  and Wow, along came Guy ...  a very knowledgeable RChatter...

Mind you, did you notice that we are all understanding marriage to be between a male and a female...  regardless of its irregularity or otherwise, so in at least one respect we are looking with 18th century eyes ...

Cheers,  JM

[Wiggy]

Very hard to make babies any other way JM!!        specially in them thar days!!   

Wiggy

[majm]

Exactly.

In NSW today, this very day, there were elections for both our houses of Parliament.  Sprukers hand out "how to vote cards" as electors approach the polling places (often local school halls etc)... 

I overheard one of our neighbours very clearly TELLING the spruker that NO, our neighbour did not want THEIR how to vote card, because they were after changing the marriage laws.  Our neighbour said " Advocating civil unions is fine, you can do want you want with civil law, but don't ram your views onto OUR marriage laws".  The spruker got so distracted he forgot to hand out his cards and wasted so much time arguing and arguing and arguing.  We got home,  I thought about posting on this thread and just could not find the "right words", then our neighbour called past SEVERAL HOURS later, very pleased with himself ... He had delayed all those how to vote cards being distributed ...  His wife just raised her eyebrows and we all had a cuppa.

Now that's democracy in action in NSW in the 21st Century ... 

Cheers,  JM 

[Wiggy]

Ummm    . . . . .    but . . .

We were talking on this thread about babies being born out of wedlock, by whatever name - so I supposed the parents would have had to be one of either sex!   

 - that was where I was coming from!!            

AND . . . . I am glad to see that the vicars/ministers/priests weren't holding it against the children for the condition of their parents union!!         Neither they should!

Wiggy

[newburychap]

A local register (1740s to 1780s) rarely uses any term for an illegitimate child (the occasional base born) but most occurences of births to single women have 'the reputed father xxx  xxxx'.  Much more useful.

[majm]

 I think perhaps "reputed" father should be on many more records ...   Shhhhhhh .... sometimes I have found fathers absent for lengthy stints eg as garrison forces in penal colony of NSW and yet their lawful wife back in England has several children sometimes as young as 3 months all ready for him when he finally returns...

Cheers,  JM