Thanks, Sheila, I think that before Queen Victoria it was not such a disgrace to have a child out of wedlock, at least not for the child. Many nobles claimed their 'natural' children as their own. And many 'natural' children, including daughters went on to marry noble men (check the Hamilton family). Perhaps the mother was 'tarnished', but I don't think that the child was necessarily. Unless it was another mouth to feed, when we are all starving... wendy ----- Original Message ----- From: <Pssheila@aol.com> To: <nir-down@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [NIR-DOWN] illegitimate birth registrations >I agree with Wendy on this one - I have seen numerous baptism records where > the child has been given the fathers name but has been recorded as being > illegitimate because the parents were not legitimately married. Both > parents > names are recorded and the child was recorded in the fathers name. I know > of a > few, also, where only the mothers name is recorded but the child was > recorded > in the fathers name!! > > Sheila > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NIR-DOWN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >