Illegitimacy

Griffinx

Slightly off topic but I was somewhat taken aback when I came across this today in church records from 1820s Westmeath. Is this common for the 19th century?

ooh.jpg

Mod note: originally in the handwriting thread, but interesting, so we'll have a separate topic.

JDERIC2017

Griffinx wrote: »

Slightly off topic but I was somewhat taken aback when I came across this today in church records from 1820s Westmeath. Is this common for the 19th century?

ooh.jpg

First time I have seen that, shocked.

KildareFan

I've seen more colourful comments on parish registers

spurious

It seems to depend on the priest. Some of them wrote the B word in HUGE letters, others just put the Latin illegitimato (or whatever it is).

VirginiaB

It's very common. I have seen it a lot in both Catholic and Protestant records. Often, they name the father and I always wonder how they knew. No secrets in small towns, I guess.  I suspect it was a legal matter--who was financially responsible for the child.

pinkypinky

Yep have seen it and worse before.

pedroeibar1

@Mod – do you want to move #1502 onwards to the ‘Off topic chat’ thread?

Sometimes abbreviated to f.l. the terms ‘filius legitimus’ or ‘filia legitima (legitimate son/daughter) are always written in Irish baptismal registers of the 1800’s and early 1900’s, both urban and rural, so it should be no surprise that ‘illegitimate’ or ‘bastard’ would be encountered, although I’ve seen the Latin version (illegitimus/a) more frequently. As Spurious says it can be a minor mention ‘(fil. illeg)’ or bastard in bold.

It was not unusual (although not very frequent) for the father to acknowledge paternity. If that happened the child usually took the father’s surname, if not it was given the mother’s. Even if paternity was not accepted, the priest would sometime write ‘father believed to be John Smith‘ or whoever. Also, it was not unusual for a couple to live together, have a child and subsequently marry. (Depending on the date and the country this could legitimise any living children of the couple.)

The Marriage Act of 1753 and the efforts to stamp out clandestine marriages had a huge influence on the recording of marriages and the subsequent status of offspring. All this must be viewed in the social & legal context of the day, an era when illegitimacy defined the legal standing of illegitimate child, one who had almost no rights of inheritance, could not enter Holy Orders without a dispensation, etc. The social stigma also was huge. When home birth was the norm and clothing was more voluminous, the pregnancy often was hidden and the child passed off simply as another sibling and raised along with its ‘sister’.

In Ireland immediately post-Independence, two factors had a big influence. Firstly the Roman Catholic moral code was enshrined in the laws of the fledgling state. This was done subtly - the RC Church exerted a hugely powerful control on society (the electorate) which then elected officials who influenced state policy with legislation reflecting and upholding the views of ‘society’. Secondly, there was a conscious effort by the State to distance itself from anything considered ‘British’. Birth outside wedlock was viewed as ‘un-Irish’ and the resulting vision of what should constitute pure Irish maidenhood led to the shoving of the pregnant unmarried out of sight.

Becoming a member of the EU, growing sexual liberation and Ireland’s economic growth led to a change in outlook. As views, attitudes and beliefs changed, legislation had to adjust to reflect the changing societal stance. The impact of social welfare support has had a major influence, not just by simple financial support, but also the availability of housing.
About one third of Irish births are now outside marriage. Chart

pinkypinky

Pedro you are a terrible back seat moderator! Other mods would give you slaps!

KildareFan

pinkypinky wrote: »

Pedro you are a terrible back seat moderator! Other mods would give you slaps!

You just did... .just a backhanded slap:D

Jellybaby1

Yes, I've seen it for many years during my research. I remember a woman approaching me having found the term in one of her records, she was in such terrible distress and couldn't understand when I accepted it so easily. She wasn't elderly by any means but perhaps a tad 'cloistered'. Felt a bit sorry for her really.

Earnest

I have been going through Shinrone CoI records and found:
1804: Mary natural dau. of Robt Armstrong & Mary Connell bapt.
1825: Sarah dau. of "Jane Donnellan who declares Thos. Robinson of Spring Park Esq. to be the father."
1835: bapt. Robert alleged son of Thos. Robinson & Anne Larney.

There could be more, I was only noting surnames of interest.

pinkypinky

Thomas Robinson got around!

dubhthach

On a broader note, it must be remember as well that for most of Irish history there wasn't really a concept of Illegitimacy. It's for this reason men such as Tairrdelbach an Fhiona Ó Domhnaill (d.1422) could have at least 15 son's (who survived to adulthood) by 10 different women, and all 15 were regarded as legitimate (and potential successors).

There was also the widespread practise of a woman naming one man over another as father of her son. The most famous example is that of 'Matthew Kelly' aka Feardorcha Ó Néill (d. 1558) the 1st Baron of Dungannon. His mother was the wife of the 'Blacksmith of Dundalk', his mother presented him to Conn Bacach mac Cuinn Ó Néill (last king of Tír Eoghain / 1st Earl of Tyrone) when he was 16. Conn accepted him as his natural son, in context of Irish society at time it wouldn't have made a difference anyways (Conn was well known for claiming son's after all it gave him an extra sword). The issue arose was when the English recognised Matthew/Feardorcha as the heir of Conn when he performed surrender and regrant. Even though at best under english law he would have been classed as a 'Bastard'. This disinherited all of the 'legitimate' sons of Conn (eg. born of marriage) most famous of whom was Seán Mac Cuinn Ó Néill (Shane the proud).

Matthew of course met a sticky end at the hands of Shane, but before then he had two son's namely Aodh (Hugh -- future Earl of Tyrone of 9 year war fame) and Art (mac an Bharúin). Aodh (Hugh) of course would carry the enmity forward with the sons of Seán (McShanes) right up to the time of the Flight of the Earls.

It's all kinda ironic, that when romantic nationalism of the 19th century (steeped in Catholicism) resurrected Aodh (Hugh) as a great hero of Irish nationalism they left out the fact that under their conservative worldview he was technically the 'son of a bastard'

pedroeibar1

dubhthach wrote: »

On a broader note, it must be remember as well that for most of Irish history there wasn't really a concept of Illegitimacy....

Well if we are going back that far…………. William the Conqueror was not a “legitimate” son under Norman law and for this reason often is referred to as ‘William the Bastard’. Several of the knights who arrived in Ireland in the 12th C also were illegitimate.

In pre Anglo-Norman Ireland it was not so much a case of ‘no concept of illegitimacy’ but rather a totally different concept of ‘marriage’. The Brehon Code acknowledged the rights of those involved in relationships (serious or casual, including 'trial marriages'), which ensured that the laws were not framed on the basis of dealing with the ensuing offspring of a single lawful marriage, but on the acceptance of children from multiple relationships. This resulted in the acceptance of polygamy as a fact of daily life and the Brehon laws enshrined the rights of the women and children. Paternity was recognised on the sole basis of the mother’s claim (as with the blacksmith’s daughter). More than a ‘chief’ wife was permitted if the man was wealthy enough to provide support for others. As the Brehon system was heavily based on classification and the ‘dire fine’ (honour price/damages) was assessed accordingly, the value of the ‘chief’ wife was half that of her husband, and the value of the second wife a quarter.(I cannot recall the Old Irish word for the second wife, it translates +/- as ‘love wife’.)

The Christian Church had rather different views on the matter which ensured that polygamy was phased out, but it did not stop. Like many other Brehon Law concepts the Normans were happy to accept or ignore the concept of illegitimacy when it suited them.

dubhthach wrote: »

Conn was well known for claiming son's after all it gave him an extra sword.

Given the resulting atrocities Conn would have been better advised to keep his sword sheathed in a scabbard!

dubhthach

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Well if we are going back that far…………. William the Conqueror was not a “legitimate” son under Norman law and for this reason often is referred to as ‘William the Bastard’. Several of the knights who arrived in Ireland in the 12th C also were illegitimate.

I don't think the 16th century (/early 17th century) is that long ago tbh? Particularly in context of (a) totality of Irish written history (b) it's relatively close to late 18th century when our more 'modern' concept of illegitimacy wins out. But it does tie into broader fact that Ireland was rather laissez faire Catholic (from a social perspective) up until the reorganisation of the Irish Catholic church from the late 18th century onward (though obviously there is start of mainstream realignment in late 16th and into 17th centuries due to Counter-Reformation influence -- though subsequently driven underground).

A major flaw I think in many people's view today of what societal norm's were like when it came to 'sexual and social mores' in the past, is that they are derived via a prism of the ascendant church of the 19th century (of Paul Cullen and the like) which reached it's zenith really with the position the church took post independence. People thus often assume that how it society developed post-1782 (Catholic relief act as a Terminus post quem) with a domineering church when it came to such matters, was how it always was.

In pre Anglo-Norman Ireland it was not so much a case of ‘no concept of illegitimacy’ but rather a totally different concept of ‘marriage’. The Brehon Code acknowledged the rights of those involved in relationships (serious or casual, including 'trial marriages'), which ensured that the laws were not framed on the basis of dealing with the ensuing offspring of a single lawful marriage, but on the acceptance of children from multiple relationships. This resulted in the acceptance of polygamy as a fact of daily life and the Brehon laws enshrined the rights of the women and children. Paternity was recognised on the sole basis of the mother’s claim (as with the blacksmith’s daughter). More than a ‘chief’ wife was permitted if the man was wealthy enough to provide support for others. As the Brehon system was heavily based on classification and the ‘dire fine’ (honour price/damages) was assessed accordingly, the value of the ‘chief’ wife was half that of her husband, and the value of the second wife a quarter.(I cannot recall the Old Irish word for the second wife, it translates +/- as ‘love wife’.)

The Christian Church had rather different views on the matter which ensured that polygamy was phased out, but it did not stop. Like many other Brehon Law concepts the Normans were happy to accept or ignore the concept of illegitimacy when it suited them.

The specific Brehon law texts on marriage very much speak of situation in the 7th/8th century when it came to marriage, their application in post 11th century situation is somewhat harder to ascertain. Some for example have suggested that any usage of some parts in later period were so as to add a 'patina of learned respect' to various going's on. After all there was widespread change/reform in Irish society even in the 100 years prior to 1169 both civilly and ecclesiastically.

A process even further driven on by the arrival of Cambro-Norman's. What we do know that is among the "Gentry" there was a strong preference for civil marriage with some Elizabethan commentators for example claiming that 80%+ of marriages in Munster in mid 16th century were purely civil in nature. This ties in with concept of having easy access to divorce (for both parties), that and there were high level's of consanguineous marriages compare to other parts of late medieval Christian Europe.

Where Marriage does seem important is for political leverage/connection (when it comes to major Lords anyways), in which case divorcing one wife to marry a new one for political gain make sense.

Given the resulting atrocities Conn would have been better advised to keep his sword sheathed in a scabbard!

Well or have brought the right son on the trip to London

pedroeibar1

dubhthach wrote: »

I don't think the 16th century (/early 17th century) is that long ago tbh?

We’re drifting more into a historical view of illegitimacy than Genealogy, but from a genealogical perspective 1800 is a big barrier and for most of us the late 16th early 17th Cs are unreachable. Like all history ‘topics’ what actually happened depended both on a specific era and within a particular social class in that period. So what a chiefly Butler or an O’Neill was ‘up to’ cannot be accepted as the basis for the behaviour of a cowherd or an innkeeper, even in the same century.

dubhthach wrote: »

A major flaw I think in many people's view today of what societal norm's were like when it came to 'sexual and social mores' in the past, is that they are derived via a prism of the ascendant church of the 19th century

And

dubhthach wrote: »

A process even further driven on by the arrival of Cambro-Norman's. What we do know that is among the "Gentry" there was a strong preference for civil marriage with some Elizabethan commentators for example claiming that 80%+ of marriages in Munster in mid 16th century were purely civil in nature.

I agree and would add that it long predates that era – Irish sexuality was an agenda item for the Cambro-Normans when they arrived - Pope Alexander wanted to ‘put manners’ on the Church in Ireland over what was viewed as clandestine marriage, a perennial problem in Ireland that survived into the until the 19th century.
Rome had serious ‘issues’ with affinity and consanguinity in Irish marriages, both of which resulted from strict observance of the Brehon code for ‘noble’ marriages. Also, I suggest that the ‘prism’ you mention extends to most historical events in Ireland, where – in the name of Nationalism - fact is skewed by a fiction to support the political agenda of the day, from the Leabhar Gabhala to the Four Masters to the Fenians. Propaganda is part of history, but it must be recognised as such, and not the ‘gospel’, which many unquestionably accept today. I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this forum some kinsmen who ‘had a large number of natural children’. From a Y-DNA perspective they could be closer to the earlier generations than say, my line, were there a NPE.
With regard to the Brehon laws, a big problem lies with the sources - they were oral, had been lost for centuries by the early medieval period and what survived are glosses, rather than ‘Law Reports’. On top of that we have the interfering hand of the Christian church – both Roman and Hiberno, each of which wanted to put its own ‘stamp’ on the recording of Irish life. Records from some of the ‘Sees’ do have references to marital cases/annulments but they are both limited and deal only with the ‘higher orders’ who, then as now, are a law onto themselves, and not representative.
Where we do agree is the fact that the old Irish Chiefs could not keep their trews on and it largely has been airbrushed from our history.:)

KildareFan

<We’re drifting more into a historical view of illegitimacy than Genealogy>

I've no problem with having historical context discussed. It helps with interpreting what genealogy is for most of us - the history of our families.

BarryD2

dubhthach wrote: »

It's all kinda ironic, that when romantic nationalism of the 19th century (steeped in Catholicism) resurrected Aodh (Hugh) as a great hero of Irish nationalism they left out the fact that under their conservative worldview he was technically the 'son of a bastard'

Yes, there's many a gap between Romantic Gaelic Ireland and what seems to have been reality.

Re OP, I've often seen the term 'foundling' which presumably covered some of the same situations, particularly where the baby was being given up to local orphanage. i.e. the mother and possibly father were known but for practical reasons a generic term like foundling would cover.

Also come across unusual adoptions, child born in small 'mother & baby' houses and seemingly adopted by pre arrangement etc.