What is the difference between terms?

[Colin Rowledge]

I see references in baptisms stating illegitimate [1811] and base [1821]. Do these terms mean the same? If not, what is the difference?

Colin

[Jan1954]

Short answer: yes :wink5:

Longer answer: there were many names given to mean illegitimate, Colin, and it depends upon where they are written and by whom as to what they were. So, illegitimate, base born, bastard, purported son/daughter of...., by-blow, whoreson etc all mean the same.

[Colin Rowledge]

Thanks Jan - that is what I thought.

So in 1811 the compiler of the Parish record and the compiler in 1821 used their own term to state the birth-right of the child.

Colin

[Jan1954]

You got it.

I have seen some quite derogatory terms used in Parish Registers by some Parish Clerks, whilst others make no comment at all about the babe, but may have against the mother "single woman" or other such adjectives.

[Colin Rowledge]

You got it.

Aint I smart!!!:detective:

Please no comment from the cheap seats

[Guy Etchells]

There was no difference between baseborn and illegitimate however the correct legal term was bastard.

Here are a few alternative terms used in Parish Registers-

bastard, base, baseborn, a by-blow, begotten in fornication, chance begot, chance child, illegitimate, love-child, love-begotten,
natural, misbegotten, merrily begotten, merrybegot, spurious, a scape-begotten child, whoreson, child of a harlot, child of shame.

In Latin there are filius nullius (son of none), filius populi (son of the people), filius meretricis (son of a prostitute).
Cheers
Guy

[benny1982]

Base and illegitimate are the same yes. I have found some really more outspoken terms like "son of a harlot" begotten, whoreson etc. If that was now the vicar would get defrocked lol.

[JohnN]

'Merrily begotten' - now that's got a nice ring to it!

:)

[Colin Rowledge]

'Merrily begotten' - now that's got a nice ring to it!

:)

Much nicer than some of the others posted by Guy. The terms may change - but the end result is still the same. The child was born of a mother, lived a long or short life, married [or didn't], had children and one of us is descended from that child.

As my own father was one, I have no qualms accepting ohers of a similar ilk within my family lineage. To me a bastard from the 18th to early 20th century, is vastly different from those born now!!

That is just my opinion, and I'm not interested [but others may be] in debating morals of society through various generations

[cicilysmith]

In Eastham in Worcestershire the vicar wrote on 6 February 1747 "baptized William base son of Jane Owles, alias Jane Toby by Michael Harris, Richard Griffin or Thomas Bury, etc." Not in my tree, thankfully. cicilysmith

[benny1982]

Ooh must have been horrible for those 3 men to be suspected and named and shamed.

[Gododdin]

Agree with JohnN; 'merrily begotten' sounds so carefree. Brows tend to furrow imagining the begetting of the rest!
Godo

[Peter Goodey]

I'm not interested [but others may be] in debating morals of society through various generations

I'm not sure if there's a possible misunderstanding there. I'm not saying they didn't care about morality but an important reason why you find references to illegitimacy in Church of England registers is because of the legal implications. For example, an illegitimate child born in the parish acquired settlement in the parish and was therefore a potential 'burden' on the rates (using a term beloved of certain modern day politicians). On the other hand a legitimate child took the settlement of the father and might therefore be someone else's problem!

[Waitabit]

'Merrily begotten' - now that's got a nice ring to it!:)

It's when the merrily wears off that the other bits tag on & sink in.

One day we'll all answer to these slurrs & slipups.