Thanks, Betty for your remarks and the link to the document...very interesting. By the way, the correct url is: http://thewitness.org/archive/april2000/marriage.html . It's a good explanation, and I found these few lines particularly interesting: **** "It has also been forgotten that about half of all brides in Britain and North America were pregnant at their weddings in the 18th century." "The Hardwicke Marriage Act of 1753 required registration of all marriages in England and Wales, and set up a bureaucratic apparatus for doing so. The creeping extension of the bureaucratic state to encompass the entry into marriage is characteristic of the apparatus of modernity. ... While the working classes continued to practice alternatives to legal marriage, the stigma of illegitimacy now attached itself to children whose parents had not been through a wedding ceremony. Gone was the transitional phase from singleness to marriage. The achievement of the widespread belief that a marriage begins with a wedding was not so much a religious or theological, but a class matter. The upper and middle classes had the political clout to enforce the social respectability of the new marriage laws, and they used it. As John Gillis writes, "From the mid-18th century onwards sexual politics became increasingly bitter as the propertied classes attempted to impose their standards on the rest of society." **** This helps shed some light on the case I'm researching. If, as your remarks and the above research state, among the working classes in the early 1840s there was more retention of the earlier-accepted notion of betrothal, and implicit acceptance of conjugal relations and/or cohabitation, then a birth (and baptism) before the wedding ceremony would not be all that unusual; though I suppose the degree of acceptance or stigma attached would vary from place to place. Also, if in fact there was no significant stigma or shame attached, then I suppose the name of this first-born son might well reflect the father's father's or mother's father's name. Lancelot.Ryan... Hmmm. Thanks again, Roger H. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:15:47 +0100 > From: Betty Gough <goughb@eircom.net> > Subject: [COTIPPERARY] Marriage Customs in the past...... > To: "COTIPPERARY@rootsweb.com" <COTIPPERARY@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <65E53A5A-5DD3-4FA2-8DD9-958D57FDCB7B@eircom.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > We make many assumptions. In order to understand the customs in our > ancestors time, we need to do documented research. I would recommend the > web site - > http://thewitness.org/archieve/april2000/marriage.html > It explains the time between the promise made and the actual wedding. > It would appear that the upper class did not consummate the union until > after the wedding, while the lower classes did otherwise, in many cases. > I had a great grandmother who had a daughter four years before she > married. The husband was the father of that child. Obviously the > child died, or disappeared, because they called their first child within > the marriage the same first name. The child born outside the marriage had > the father's sir name and was listed as the father. His brother and a > neighbour were sponsors at the baptism. There were no remarks by the > priest on the baptismal entry. My husbands great uncle was born three > months before the marriage of the parents. Again, no offensive comments > on the entry. > > Back then in the mid to late 1800's It appeared to be common enough in the > Catholic church baptismal records. The above mentioned families were > middle class,and would be seen as respectable in their community at the > time. Class was denoted by the ownership of property, or professional > qualifications. > > It would appear that the homes for unmarried mothers and the stigma > attached to same brought about a change in the attitude of society. > From what I have read, I have come to the conclusion (open to debate) that > the clergy at the time began to crack the whip in an effort to reduce the > births outside of marriage. The other influence was from the upper > class, who did not approve. Having servant girls getting pregnant at > the drop of a hat, (or should I say pants) was most inconvenient. > > This is an area in our social history of the past that needs a lot more > research. I believed that all baptised adults and members of the > Catholic faith who could provide proof that they were not already married > to a living person were entitled to marry within the R.C. Church. I > imagine it was the same in the Anglican Church. That was the purpose of > letters of freedom or banns being read. > Sorry for going on so long. Hope my discovery might help others. > Betty Gough > > >