Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Child in Fornication!!
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Kirsty | Report | 15 Nov 2006 18:22 |
|
I've got a copy of my g g grandfather's baptism from a Scottish parochial register - he's down as being a 'child in fornication'. I know he was illegitimate, but was it normally referred to as this? - it seems a bit strong. On the plus side the entry did name both parents, which the legitimate entries didn't do. |
|||
|
Rachel | Report | 15 Nov 2006 18:56 |
|
sounds like he was a love child, maybe the father was big enough to wed the childs mother before the child was christened UPDATE Just found these references Medieval canon law developed the doctrine of legitimation by subsequent marriage: if two persons had a child in fornication, their subsequent marriage altered the child’s status from illegitimate to legitimate, provided that no impediment existed between the parents. Thus, later matrimony affected the status of the existing heirs in favour of the legitimized child(ren). Churchwardens present the following: John Fereman and Richard Tustin, late churchwardens, for detaining the church money in their hands, being 30s or thereabouts; Joan Hinde for having a child in fornication or adultery, and not naming the father; Walter Garlicke and Thomas Cooke for absenting themselves from church on Sundays; Willim. Nayler for grinding corn on his 'milne' [mill] on the Lord's day. Dated November 1640, day obscured by damage; remainder of presentment bills in bundle dated 6 November. Written in another hand, 'emat in xij xbris 1640'. |
|||
|
Kirsty | Report | 15 Nov 2006 19:12 |
|
Interesting. The parents definitely never got married to each other. I've found a marriage for the father (to someone else), but not traced one for the mother yet. |
|||
|
Wendy | Report | 15 Nov 2006 19:34 |
|
It does denote that the father admitted to the child - even if they subsequently did not marry. I find the language alters from parish to parish - mildly - 'base born', strongly - 'bastard child of that whore XX' (name deleted to avoid giving offence to anyone who shares it!!). The latter is not a rector that I would have liked to have fallen foul of - although I admit there was more than one entry for said lady. The times they are a'changing. Wendy |
|||
|
Kirsty | Report | 15 Nov 2006 19:44 |
|
My entry doesn't sound so bad now! |
|||