marriage and illegitimate children

[mell]

GREETINGS
can anyone tell me what the outlook was on illegitamate children or child in the year of say around 1720.
what were the consequences of such a thing happening. And if the male did not know of the child, would he still have been held accountable? would he still have been expected to acknowledge her as his own?
and i am wondering if marriages were arranged then? what rights did the women have as far as refusal?
patiently waiting a reply..............

[ANDY-J2]

Mell,
I have studied the lives of the social elite during that period and illigitemacy seemed to be an accepted part of life amongst the aristocracy and even Kings of the period often had several ******* offspring-Charles II being the most notable example.As far as I'm aware the illigitemate offspring of an aristocrat enjoyed the same legal claim to his estate as legitimate offspring.I don't know about the poorer classes in the early eighteenth-century,but given that Calvinism with its austerity and emphasis on moral rectitude was hugely influential in Scotland illigitemacy would have carried a great stigma and I would imagine that couples would often have been forced to marry rather than bring disgrace to their families or local community.Arranged marriages were certainly not uncommon amongst the wealthier classes as the growing number of gentry families sought to ascend the social ladder by marrying into aristocracy however I am unsure whether they were as common amongst the less well off,but I would imagine that young people were pressurised by their families into marrying for financial reasons etc.

[HollyElise]

Mel, I was enquiring here one day about the Scottish tradition of naming sons after the surnames of their grandparents and greatgrandparents and someone shared a very interesting bit of trivia about illigitimacy and naming.

I guess in days of old as well as days not too long ago (because examples were shared), if a Scots woman had a child out of wedlock the child would often be named after the father... it was actually a way of telling the whole community who the father of the child was without being so obvious, so that he would have to be responsible for the child!... because of course, if he didn't make sure the woman and child were cared for, the whole community would give him hell! ...often then, if he was unwed there would be community pressure to marry her, and if he was already married to someone else, he would be embarrassed and still have to provide for them. *snicker*... i think this was pretty cool!

[Marilynne1]

My father was born in 1899. His mother and father did not get married until 1900. My researching shows they appear to have lived in a very poor part of Glasgow, but they went on to have a very large family.

[Monco]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Mell,
I have studied the lives of the social elite during that period and illigitemacy seemed to be an accepted part of life amongst the aristocracy and even Kings of the period often had several ******* offspring-Charles II being the most notable example.As far as I'm aware the illigitemate offspring of an aristocrat enjoyed the same legal claim to his estate as legitimate offspring.

I am not especially knowledgeable about this, but I would find it very surprising if ******* children could make a claim on their fathers estate. I was under the impression that the marriage contract agreed by the two families would mean that only legitimate children could inherit the paternal estate. I recall reading in a biography of James Boswell that his father threatened to disinherit him, but could not actually do so under the terms of his marriage contract.

I could see why that would be so, afterall why should the mother of the legitimate son have to see her husbands legacy shared with her husbands *******s?

[ANDY-J2]

Illegitimacy did not debar royalty from ascending the throne and several Kings of England were illegitimate,William I being one example and several *******s made claims upon the throne.For example Charles II illegitimate son the Duke of Monmouth attempted to overthrow the government of James II.He did enjoy widespread support but this in part could be due to the unpopularity of James' rule.Illegitimacy doesn't seem to have been an issue for either the aristocracy or royalty until comparatively recently.After all the main raison d'etre of every King or noble was to ensure the continuation of his dynasty.In some cases a ******* son would have been the only relative to carry on a families lineage and for this reason they were not debarred by law from inheriting their father's estate.

Just look at the words legitimate and illegitimate! These are legal terms. An illegitimate child, originally, was one which was not recognised in law. Illegitimacy quite specifically barred children from inheriting estates or offices. William I of England was illegitimate but gained the throne through conquest. Other illegitimate claimants have also had to resort to the military option as there was no other way to claim the throne.

Look at the life of Mary Queen of Scots: she ended up dead because Europe's Roman Catholics regarded Elizabeth I of England as illegitimate and, therefore, barred from inheriting her father's throne.


btw, I am the one who originally posted that little gem about mothers of illegitimate children giving the child the father's name. For example, if John Smith fathered an illegitiamte son by Mary Anderson, the mother would name her child John Smith Anderson. I discoverd this through research into my own family tree.