In a message dated 6/16/2005 5:12:58 PM US Eastern Standard Time, KahluaSue@aol.com writes: What was the status of women who gave birth to illegitimate children? Did these women usually live alone or with their families? . But the stigma of illegitimacy . . . . (An apparent case of the sins of the fathers being passed on to the children....) Let me see if I can pass on a little of what I understand about this line of questioning. The "status" concept you're trying to pin down was not so much related to the physical circumstances of the birth, but rather to how much wealth (land, animals, equipment, etc) a person had, OR, to their potential for wealth through inheritance. Tracking who was the son or daughter of whom was directly, and most importantly, related to claims for inheritance -- it was NOT related to some state of sinfulness through some connection to religion. (that is a Puritan concept established in USA by English). A person's (male or female) prospects for marriage were generally pretty much directly related to how much wealth they had -- and parents tended to try and make arrangements for marriages which improved their land holdings, status, wealth etc. As for your specific questions, unmarried women with children lived in varying circumstances depending on what they owned or didn't own -- if she owned land etc. (living in her own home) then her prospects for marriage were very good, as their were plenty of non-landed peasants around. If her parents were still alive, she probably lived with them, or perhaps with the brother who got the land/house etc upon death of parents. There is no indication in histories, or sociological studies of the time that indicate that unwed mothers, or their offspring were "shunned " so to speak by the villages. The proper way to go after answers to your line of inquiry is to "follow the money" and not confuse things with some concept of morality which didn't exist. As far as I can tell, their was no so-called "stigma" of illegitimacy you mention. It has been reported that couples whose marriage was already arranged would in fact wait to marry until the woman was in fact pregnant -- thereby ensuring that the family line would continue. Any negative attachment to unwed women with children is simply because it "muddies" the water with regard to property rights. Marriages were arranged to improve status, and your family connections gave you rights to wealth -- that is what mattered. The church records served as County Recorders offices do today -- because a person's birth status (i.e., father and mother) defined their inheritance rights. >>>In one village it appears that marriages, baptisms, etc. were all conducted one day a month. Were there visiting priests who traveled from village to village, performing those ceremonies?>>> If there was not an established church and pastor, then yes, some priests at some time did travel a circuit to some of those villages. In other circumstances, people had to travel to the place the priest or pastor was located. This sort of thing was not stable, or driven by some gov't policy. One priest may have been very dedicated to doing this, while the next one may have only been sporadic in his travel attempts. >>>What was done with people who died between visits? Where they just buried, with a funeral mass conducted later?>>> Yes they were buried, usually within one day. Were there really funeral masses conducted? or even any kind of ceremony? or is this again, a more modern or current concept trying to be overlaid on the past? In even moderate size villages in the 1800s (as well as later), several people a day would die -- if a mass were done for each these the priest or pastor wouldn't have time to be doing anything else. My thoughts are that there were no "special" services for the dead such we see today. >>>> Godparents appear to be friends (or sometimes cousins) of the parents of a child being baptized. Was that typical? Why weren't aunts or uncles of the child used as godparents?>>> Often times (meaning both spatially and temporally) there is no such thing as "typical". People followed traditions that were rather local. There are thousands of examples of aunts and uncles serving as godparents, and just as many thousands where it is friends. Same as it is today. In the Lutheran communities, people chose godparents with the same name as either the mother or father for the first born, because the child was named after the godparents (almost exclusively) and they wanted the first born to have the parents name. It had nothing to do with the relationship of the godparents to the actual parents. It could also be that the local church or priest at the time for which the records you're referencing were done had some sort of policy -- again, many of the practices we might see reflected in brief records depended on the whims of the local guy, and where he studied his theology and what was some current interpretation of some particular issue right at that time. There were many ***local*** customs that changed over time or that were driven by who was in charge -- either church or landlord related. >>>At what level of consanquinity was a dispensation required? In one village that I'm researching, nearly every marrying couple is related to the 3rd degree, but I'm not seeing any notes about dispensations.>>>> Do you know that some such thing was required? Depending on what time period you're referring to, it would be difficult (because populations were small) to arrange a marriage to someone to whom you were not related to the 2nd or 3rd degree. Of course marriages were arranged with persons from neighboring villages as well, but I think again, what you are seeing is the use of marriage as a means of consolidating wealth to some degree. As mentioned previously, marriages were arranged for purposes of inheritance, and improving status through property rights and ownership. Since wealth could only be accumulated through land ownership (cash wages were a later thing with industrialization), the "church" in fact encouraged only marriages where the male could prove he could provide for a family -- and that meant having land. Wealth and inheritance rights were the basis for these community relationships. Best regards Linda

In regard to births outside of marriage, there were many of them in the records I read for the 1800's and there apparently was no stigma attached to them. They were listed in church records, had god parents, both family and friends and not separated as to birth of later children. As for wealth your talking about a very small part of the population. Most of us don't have that concern. Margaret ----- Original Message ----- From: <Guardenvtl@aol.com> To: <HUNGARY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 6:04 AM Subject: Re: [HUNGARY-L] Miscellaneous questions > > In a message dated 6/16/2005 5:12:58 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > KahluaSue@aol.com writes: > > What was the status of women who gave birth to illegitimate children? > Did > these women usually live alone or with their families? . But the > stigma > of illegitimacy . . . . (An apparent case of the sins of the fathers > being > passed on to the > children....) > > > Let me see if I can pass on a little of what I understand about this line > of > questioning. The "status" concept you're trying to pin down was not so > much > related to the physical circumstances of the birth, but rather to how > much > wealth (land, animals, equipment, etc) a person had, OR, to their > potential > for wealth through inheritance. Tracking who was the son or daughter of > whom > was directly, and most importantly, related to claims for inheritance -- > it > was NOT related to some state of sinfulness through some connection to > religion. (that is a Puritan concept established in USA by English). A > person's > (male or female) prospects for marriage were generally pretty much > directly > related to how much wealth they had -- and parents tended to try and make > arrangements for marriages which improved their land holdings, status, > wealth etc. > As for your specific questions, unmarried women with children lived in > varying > circumstances depending on what they owned or didn't own -- if she owned > land etc. (living in her own home) then her prospects for marriage were > very > good, as their were plenty of non-landed peasants around. If her parents > were > still alive, she probably lived with them, or perhaps with the brother > who got > the land/house etc upon death of parents. There is no indication in > histories, or sociological studies of the time that indicate that unwed > mothers, or > their offspring were "shunned " so to speak by the villages. > > The proper way to go after answers to your line of inquiry is to "follow > the > money" and not confuse things with some concept of morality which didn't > exist. As far as I can tell, their was no so-called "stigma" of > illegitimacy > you mention. It has been reported that couples whose marriage was > already > arranged would in fact wait to marry until the woman was in fact > pregnant -- > thereby ensuring that the family line would continue. Any negative > attachment to > unwed women with children is simply because it "muddies" the water with > regard to property rights. Marriages were arranged to improve status, > and your > family connections gave you rights to wealth -- that is what mattered. > The > church records served as County Recorders offices do today -- because a > person's birth status (i.e., father and mother) defined their inheritance > rights. > > > > > >>>>In one village it appears that marriages, baptisms, etc. were all > conducted > one day a month. Were there visiting priests who traveled from village > to > village, performing those ceremonies?>>> > > If there was not an established church and pastor, then yes, some priests > at > some time did travel a circuit to some of those villages. In other > circumstances, people had to travel to the place the priest or pastor was > located. > This sort of thing was not stable, or driven by some gov't policy. One > priest > may have been very dedicated to doing this, while the next one may have > only > been sporadic in his travel attempts. > >>>>What was done with people who died between visits? Where they just > buried, with a funeral mass conducted later?>>> > > Yes they were buried, usually within one day. Were there really funeral > masses conducted? or even any kind of ceremony? or is this again, a more > modern > or current concept trying to be overlaid on the past? In even moderate > size > villages in the 1800s (as well as later), several people a day would > die -- > if a mass were done for each these the priest or pastor wouldn't have > time to > be doing anything else. My thoughts are that there were no "special" > services for the dead such we see today. > >>>>> Godparents appear to be friends (or sometimes cousins) of the parents > of a > child being baptized. Was that typical? Why weren't aunts or uncles of > the > child used as godparents?>>> > > Often times (meaning both spatially and temporally) there is no such > thing > as "typical". People followed traditions that were rather local. There > are > thousands of examples of aunts and uncles serving as godparents, and just > as > many thousands where it is friends. Same as it is today. In the > Lutheran > communities, people chose godparents with the same name as either the > mother or > father for the first born, because the child was named after the > godparents > (almost exclusively) and they wanted the first born to have the parents > name. > It had nothing to do with the relationship of the godparents to the > actual > parents. It could also be that the local church or priest at the time > for > which the records you're referencing were done had some sort of policy -- > again, > many of the practices we might see reflected in brief records depended on > the whims of the local guy, and where he studied his theology and what > was some > current interpretation of some particular issue right at that time. > There > were many ***local*** customs that changed over time or that were driven > by > who was in charge -- either church or landlord related. > >>>>At what level of consanquinity was a dispensation required? In one > village that I'm researching, nearly every marrying couple is related to > the 3rd > degree, but I'm not seeing any notes about dispensations.>>>> > > Do you know that some such thing was required? Depending on what time > period you're referring to, it would be difficult (because populations > were small) > to arrange a marriage to someone to whom you were not related to the 2nd > or > 3rd degree. Of course marriages were arranged with persons from > neighboring > villages as well, but I think again, what you are seeing is the use of > marriage as a means of consolidating wealth to some degree. As mentioned > previously, marriages were arranged for purposes of inheritance, and > improving status > through property rights and ownership. Since wealth could only be > accumulated through land ownership (cash wages were a later thing with > industrialization), the "church" in fact encouraged only marriages where > the male could prove > he could provide for a family -- and that meant having land. Wealth and > inheritance rights were the basis for these community relationships. > > Best regards > Linda > > > > > >