In message <000001c2e9d4$ab767180$f4313041@mtki.phub.net.cable.rogers.co m>, David Parker <parker3250@rogers.com> writes > I assume that any 18C and 19C village/small town clergyman knew >his congregation, and knew if parents at the time of a baptism were in fact >married. There is no guarantee that a couple remained in the parish in which they were born. If they arrived 'looking married' then no quaestions were asked unless a. someone spiteful blew the whistle or b. the family needed financial support from the parish overseers. The clergyman could stick to the letter of the law and call the child by the mother's surname, if he knew the couple were not married, It was standard practice to add the father's name, as a middle name, if there was a probability of later marriage, or if both parents lived in the parish (to prevent later incest) > ? Did he have authority to refuse >to give the child the father's surname as the child's surname ? Only if it was the Squire's and the Squire was a. his brother b. threatened him. Nevertheless, most gentlemen did acknowledge their bastards - Lord Dundonald went round checking that his name (Cochrane) was added in every case. > Did he have any >authority to prevent an single mother naming the father b The mother was obliged to name the father (if she could) as a civil martter, since he was liable for maintenance. >y using his name as a >middle name? Is the entry of "bb" an arbitrary one? no - if the fact was known, most clergy added it. > Was its use determined by >the class of the mother? an upper class mother would go away abroad and have an illness lasting nine months, dumping the child overseas or at the other end of the country. (Unless she was really brazen.like the D, who lived in a menage a trois with her husband and Lady Elizabeth Foster, punctuated by children of either pairing.) > Was it ever officially stopped? The mid to late Victorians became mealy mouthed about using bastard or base, and substituted 'natural' sometimes. > Any information would >be appreciated > I have heard that a genealogist has related the birth dates of the >first child to the marriage dates and has calculated the percentage of brides >who were at the time of their marriage apparently pregnant - i.e. the birth took >place within 6months of the marriage - or were already mothers - i.e. the birth >took place before the marriage date. Does anyone have those numbers? In case >you are wondering I am aware of the human gestation period is 275 day or roughly >nine months. >Thanking you > >David. >Toronto. >where the temperature should reach 6c this week end and should start to melt the >accumulation of 10 weeks of snow. We are getting quite excited. > > >==== HAMPSHIRE-LIFE Mailing List ==== >This is YOUR list so please treat it the way you wish yourself treated. >Remember: "FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION" It comes bundled with the software! > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society