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. Nevertheless I have noticed that parish records sometimes list the surname of a child as that of the father even though the parents were not married. This has raised in my mind a number of question directly and indirectly associated with that. Was this because he, the clergyman, knew of their plans to get married? Did he do it out of kindness ? Did he have authority to refuse to give the child the father's surname as the child's surname ? Did he have any authority to prevent an single mother naming the father by using his name as a middle name? Is the entry of "bb" an arbitrary one? Was its use determined by the class of the mother? Was it ever officially stopped? 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.