Once an outcast always an outcast?

[Chobuck]

I was browsing through a parish register searching for births and marriage's of my ancestors. I came across an entry for what I believe to be a relative of my ggggrandfather. It listed the birth of a son James as the spurious (illegitimate) offspring of this woman Elizabeth. A couple pages later there was another child of Elizabeth this time a daughter Mary listed as spurious also. A few pages later (I was paging from back to front) there was an entry listing Elizabeth as the spurious daughter of Susanna. Did the curse of being born a bastad follow a person from generation to generation? Just curious. I knew that there was a stigma but never thought that it would preclude one from getting married. Anyone know?

[Nicolina]

my favourite ancestor was illegitimate and consequently had SIX illegitimate kids of her own plus 4 legitimate ones (in between) she was also married twice. So it doesn't always preclude one from marrying but, as in the modern day, kids learn from their parents but anyone is allowed to make a mistake (or two).

[JohnN]

I have a similar line in my ancestry - from a family who lived in a sleepy Hampshire village back in the old days when folk had to make their own entertainment.

It's hard to make any sort of judgement without knowing the circumstances. In my case, there's no knowing if the children all had the same father, or if so, was there a legitimate(!) reason why the parents couldn't marry, and was the father of the two subsequent (legitimate) children also the father of the four preceding illegitimate ones. Alternatively, great great Granny Mary Ann's occupation was shown in the census as 'Needlewoman' - was she in fact a representative of the village hospitality industry, or did she simply have a loving nature?

And since illegitimacy was so widepread at that time (over at least two generations), was there in fact any great stigma attached? I should imagine that the attitude of the local parson would have had an influence too, on attitudes, if not on morals.

Interesting subject...

[Guy Etchells]

The stigma was attached to illegitimacy in the hypocrisy of the Victorian era.
Prior to that there was no shame in having children outside of marriage, in fact it was a common occurrence. The shame came from not being able to support ones children, no matter whether they were born from the marriage bed or not.

The reason parish registers note bastard children was due to the parish having to support children born out of wedlock. Being a bastard gave one rights and privileges not given to children born in wedlock.
A child born in marriage took their settlement from their father’s parish of settlement, a bastard took their parish of settlement from the parish they were born in.
This could mean if a father died the wife and children of the marriage being shunted miles to a parish they had never lived in.
Cheers
Guy
P.S. Do not forget in earlier times marriage was signified by intercourse not a church ceremony.

[Waitabit]

P.S. Do not forget in earlier times marriage was signified by intercourse not a church ceremony.

Oh thank you Guy for bringing that to the fore, establish 'the born under stigma' as spoken by some bigotted #? not by Gods law( which was under interpretation by yet more 'men')

We are forever driven by some 'man' who was taught by some 'man' who thought he knew it all.
Happily we have the chance to see what went before & who thought he was ultimo supremo.

Too many lives were wrecked by past 'would be when they could be.....s.'

The stigma was attached to illegitimacy in the hypocrisy of the Victorian era.
Prior to that there was no shame in having children outside of marriage, in fact it was a common occurrence. The shame came from not being able to support ones children, no matter whether they were born from the marriage bed or not.

Oh dear, has she wroughtonabit?

Do you feel I have a 'thing' for those so said?