|
SR - as you'll see I misread the date, but:
Using the annual report of the registrar-general
http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/Browse?path=Browse/Registrar%20General%20(by%20date)&active=yes&titlepos=0
we can see the illegitimacy rate for England +Wales in 1914 was 37329/879096 i.e., 4.26%
This was quite a drop from 1865 - 22844/343781 i.e., 6.64% (p 19).
I also looked up Scotland for 1914 8879/123934 i.e., 7.16%
It was easy to see there was considerable variation as Shetland was 23/462 i.e., 4.97% and Aberdeenshire was 982/7485 i.e., 13.11% - just picking the first county listed and one I knew abt - my dad was born in Aberdeen and both his gran's were illeg.
His maternal g gran was abt 16 when she had his gran - her age is guess work - I've got 7 documents with her age on, and there's at least 6 difft ages therein. Also, I can't find his gran's first census, so I'm not sure when she was born.
Dad's gran had 3 younger bro's, all born illegitimately. When the youngest was abt 16, his mum wed his dad, who was also the father of the next youngest. so this legitimized the two youngest brothers.
This was under old scots law, but 1870/80-ish, a similar was passed for England/Wales.
Two single parents marrying 16 y after their kids were born is very unusual - I would say a marr even 3 years after was very unusual.
You could check the illeg rate for the area of interest to you - there was a fair degree of variation below the border too, but maybe not as extreme as in Scotland.
|
|
Shelley Rose .........
I have to admit that the welcoming was probably more common in agricultural communities, but it does seem that the older generation welcomed a fecund bride into the family because it showed they would not have to worry about who was going to look after them when they could no longer.
The Victorian attitude to sex, although a little later than this birth, was actually more a result of the middle class than the "upper" or "lower" classes .......... it seems that Victoria herself was a pretty lusty lass!
My gt grandmother seemingly willingly looked after 4 illegitimate children that one of her daughters had during the 1880s and 1890s, that was in Ashton under Lyme in Lancashire/Cheshire (depending on when and where you are looking!). Daughter continued working at a local cotton mill!
|
|
Many Thanks ArgyllGran, Inky1 and SylviainCanada, for your replies,
The problem I had re: checking the Church entry for the child b.1814 is the surname is quite common (which I didn't realise) so finding any info might be very difficult. Also the spelling of the surname!
SylviainCanada your reply was very interesting I hadn't considered the Festivals etc and not realised that illegitimate children were welcomed into the family by a future husband.
|
|
not uncommon for women to have children before they married ............
in fact illegitimate children were often welcomed by the family of a future husband ..... they proved the woman was fecund, and would produce children to take care of the elders of the family in later life.
So, I would say, it is possible, but you cannot also assume that the father of that child was the man she later married!
Don't forget, May Day celebrations and Harvest Festival or the Summer Solstice were big in country life, and those 3 in particular were times when the young people could disappear into the woods, and no-one paid any attention.
|
|
Does the Church entry give any hints?
Two from my tree:-
1. Baptised with mother's surname. The record includes the statement " with XXXXX the supposed father". They married later.
2. Baptised with father's surname. They married later.
|
|
She might - maybe her father didn't allow her to get married until she was older.
Or maybe the husband wasn't the father of the child.
Sorry, can't be more definite about it.
|
|
Hope someone can help please I've a query regarding a birth. Would it be the norm for a girl of 16 to have a child and then get married 4 years later (presumably to the father of the child)? This is a child b. in 1814?
The first child I've found in the said marriage was in 1818 the year the couple got married.
Any advice most welcome, Thanks (back later)
ShelleyRose
|
