Hypothetical Question.....

[DavidWW]

Lizzie

Potentially a can of worms here in one sense!

I immediately see three scenarios!

Firstly, the couple were irregularly married before the birth so that the birth, in the eyes of Scottish law, was not illegitimate.

Secondly, the parents married sometime after the birth, but before the introduction of statutory registration on 1st January 1855 (I'm assuming that there is no trace of a marriage from 1st Jan 1855 onwards), in which case, under Scottish law, the previous illegitimate birth was automatically legitimated.

Thirdly, they never married, regularly or irregularly, but the father admitted paternity, as you have written, and it would appear that the child was well aware of this.

Far from uncommon for a wealthy family to try to "brush under the carpet" such a "youthful indiscretion", but they could not deny the father's clear admission of paternity in the hospital records!!

Davie

[mesklin]

Lizzie

I was concerned about it being an illegitimate birth which today would not have had such dire consequences as did at that time.

Despite the modern beliefs in the consequences of illegitimacy, records tend to support the fact that having children without 'formal' marriage was relatively common in the 19th century, and only carried a stigma when it came to the possibility of claiming inheritance or connection with a well-to-do family.

The situation in the first half of the 20th century was far more severe. Because 'formal' marriage became the norm, anything else was considered socially unacceptable, and heinous crimes were committed (often, literally) against unmarried mothers.

Don't knock the Victorians. The prudes of the 20th century were far worse. You can do almost anything to a 'socially unacceptable' person.

A thought for the 21st century.

Dave

[Andy]

Lizzie

Don't knock the Victorians. The prudes of the 20th century were far worse. You can do almost anything to a 'socially unacceptable' person.

A thought for the 21st century.

Dave

Like make them stand out in the freezing cold, rain lashing horizontally because of the hurricane force wind ..... just because they're dying for a ciggie!

[Lizzie]

Just found the latest replies on this sad tale, although the punch line should be - this family is in Burke's Peerage, having purchased land from the Duke of Fife, and through marriages are attached to the gentry as far as the Althorps.
William is there with wrong dates, whoever put it in. I am now wondering who the informant is in Burke's Peerage. I tried to make an enquirie but did not get far.
This is a huge family. Funny thing, some time ago I found William's Uncle, a very prominent man married a young Catholic girl and they had thirteen children who many turned up in Convents. That led me on another trail thinking maybe that was the problem they had with the young couple but not so I found his parents married at a Manse in Elgin. A son of this uncle turns up in Dakota. I have been in touch with the historians there and found he was a very important man there and was something in the Goverment.
It eats me up to think of where this young mother and her child finished up

Lizzie

[AnneM]

Hi All

Noted what Dave says about Victorian morality but there's little doubt that there was a problem if the parties were not socially on a level, as seems to be the case here.

Anne

[StewL]

Hi Anne

I believe it was called "marrying below their station" or something like that.

Davie
As you said Victorians werent as pure as they are made out to be. I discovered this through my studies involving the history of childhood, and the "myth" of motherhood. Very intriguing, the double standards that were applied.