ARC...Surmising a probable reasons!

[jo.]

When facts that you know are accurate but don't make sense, is it right to surmise a probable reason!

I have proven facts concerning, when children were born out of wedlock and marriage at a later point between the parents. It was a very big surprise to find this out, as all other evidence supports that not only were they decent folk but also very religious.. So this would totally go against the grain of their personal beliefs and that of their families etc...

So I've used the evidence that I have and factors of the era they lived in, to create several plausible explanation why, with total acknowledgement that these are a mere possible explanations and aren't to be considered as facts, but a point of discussions to a 'may' as the true answer will never be known.

It has been suggested that I shouldn't be doing this, but just keep to the facts that are proven... Which I've done on the main family tree proven facts only, but included this side of things as a separate area of information..

But am I right or wrong?

[Antie Em]

I think you are right. I have in my family, lots of children that were born out of wedlock, to families who I know were church goers. It was probably more important that the kids had a mom and dad to look after them, that what the minister thought. And don't forget - they didn't have birth control, or a telly.

[MarkCDodd]

Usually if there is a delay in the marriage, ie there are several children out of wedlock before they marry, there is a simple explanation.

The most common cause is a previous marriage.

Divorce was not readily available to the common folk.

Quite often a wife would be abandoned and have to wait many years for the courts to recognize that abandonment.

Or they might have to wait for the first husband/wife to die as the Church Of England did not support the marriage of divorced people whilst their ex partner is still alive.

So they may have been religious but not willing to give up a life of happiness waiting for the secular authorities to recognize their status as man and wife.

I have also seen non-conformist and Catholics refuse to get married in a Church Of England which was a mandate up till 1837. Needless to say these are devout christian, just no good old CofE.

[Antie Em]

And - don't forget that most men, especially in industrial areas spent more time in the pub than in church. Miners were given beer rather than water while they were at work.

[jo.]

I've ruled out previous marriages...

The simplest explanation is that they never felt the need to!

But I very much suspect there's a little bit more than that, my theory is based really on finding the money, as there are various factors which could indicate this.

But personally I feel that hazarding a guess if fine, as long as I keep these completely separate from proven facts.

[AndrewA]

What years are we talking about? Have you seen any Baptism entries for the children concerned? That can tell a lot about the relationship between the parents, the clergy making these entries were not coy about stating the true nature of the childs parentage. If circumstances were such that the parish priest was sympathetic and understanding or there was no problem with their relationship being "in sin", then maybe the entries would reflect this and just be entered as James Son of John and Mary, instead of Illegitimate child or worse!

[jo.]

We're talking about 1915-'1930's...

First child born in 1915, second in 1922, they married in 1925 and third child born in 1927 The two older children's births were re-registered in 1927 under the legitimacy Act...

I know the father served in the war, no surviving service records, so don't know when he actually enlisted, this could explain the delay with the oldest child, as it's likely during the war years there wasn't quite the shame surrounding having a child out of wedlock, but in 1922 the leeway given during the war years would have dissipated, and scorn once again given...

They re-registered the births of the oldest two, when they registered the birth of their youngest child..

The oldest two were originally registered under their mothers surname, and we know that there wasn't a previous marriage for the mum, her age makes it unlikely and she continued to live with her mother until after her marriage.

Again with the father age would make a previous marriage unlikely, he wasn't a local man but evidence is suggesting that he never left his parents or his job (apart from war service of cause) as this is the details given on the marriage certificate!

Family lore says that they met when he was working on the railways, before the war but there isn't any evidence to back this up, the only employee I can find with same name had a different date of birth, but was still employed by the railways after the death of the father, so not the same person.

I'm waiting for the copy of his entry into the Roll of Honour, so I can get his discharge date,

For us it's interesting as there doesn't seem to have been any impact at all to family relations, both families seem to have accepted it, with all normal family ties were maintained a pretty close family even with the distance involved, with children visiting grandparents and relatives etc and the older siblings never mentioned anything to their youngest sibling... And the oldest would have definitely known...

[snoopysue]

I think it's okay to make suppositions, as long as you say that's what they are.
I'm in the process of doing a book about my lot (for family use), and there are several suppositions, but I make it clear that it's my guess as to why things are as they are.

[Northern Lass]

Flagging to see if this is now completed as an old post.
unless advised in the next 24 hrs will move to archived.