baptism query

[Sussex Maid]

I have the following baptism information

1849
Samuel
Parents Samuel Perry, Martha Rixn (sic)
Occupation Labourer/singlewoman
(in margin: illegitimate crossed through)

Would the word ‘illegitimate’ be crossed through because the father acknowledged the child, even though the birth certificate only has the mother’s name?
This couple also had two more children in the same parish and both of their baptisms only have the parent as mother/occupation singlewoman.

Would welcome any thoughts.

[Phoenix]

If the parents weren't married, the child would be illegitimate. It may be that the couple lived together and presented the appearance of being married, but even a subsequent marriage would not change Samuel's status (Wilkie Collins wrote a novel - No Name - on that very situation)

[Penelope]

In our parish records, often a (later?) parish clerk would expunge bits of the more 'scandalous' entries - probably thinking they're doing the families concerned a favour. Some are vandalised to the point they are illegible. Others just lightly crossed out and easily legible.

You could try Access to Archives (I think there's a link somewhere on here so you can still egt on it) and look for bastardy bonds in that area?

Many of my ancestors were illegitimate - and from all social classes - and one who was the daughter of a fisherman, was the second of three illegitimate chidlren born to the same couple. A couple of years later, the couple married but her entire life, my grt grt etc grandmother kept her mother's maiden name as her surname but inserted dad's surname before that - so her name was Rose Richardson Ablett, even though her mum was Mrs Richardson from Rose's infancy. And I have seen this with other families too.

The child would be legally illegitimate and a later marriage would not change that, I don't think? It would only clarify the financial situation as to supporting the child. The baptism record couldn't technically be altered retrospectively, although that doesn't seem to stop people coming back at a later date and messing with it! Have you checked out the Bishops' Transcript as well?

Just to see if there are any discrepencies?

[Sussex Maid]

Phoenix/Penelope - thank you for your replies
I have the two parents in 1851 living next door to each other, but the father, Samuel snr, is shown as married and the mother is shown as unmarried.
By 1861, in another parish and registration district, they are Mr and Mrs Perry even though there is no record of a marriage.
Will check the Bishops Transcripts, might be a bit more info
thank you

[kylejustin]

as far as legitimisation after parents were married, you had to be incredibly rich, and the petition the church to let you marry the parent of your children, and then get another dispensation that legitimizes them.

john of ghaunt did this with katherine swynford. and i think henry VIII did something similar.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix/Penelope - thank you for your replies
I have the two parents in 1851 living next door to each other, but the father, Samuel snr, is shown as married and the mother is shown as unmarried.
By 1861, in another parish and registration district, they are Mr and Mrs Perry even though there is no record of a marriage.
Will check the Bishops Transcripts, might be a bit more info
thank you

Just to clarify, in 1851, is there a single line or double line between the parents? The former would indicate that they are under the same roof, even if not acknowledged as a single household.

[Sussex Maid]

Oops sorry, wandered off to order copy of BT.
In 1851 - ref HO107;Piece:1771;Folio:80;Page:12;GSU roll:207417 - they are separate households, space has been left between each household and Martha (mother) is shown as 'head'.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Sorry but I beg to differ!

At the discretion of the Vicar/Bishop, whoever, a child could be legitimised by the later marriage of his parents and I have seen "illegitimate" scrubbed out several times.

This was to give the child a fighting chance in life, when being illegitimate was a real drawback and closed many avenues, including apprenticeships and entry to a profession.

I am talking 1600s/1700s here, with a bit of a hangover into the 1800s. It doesn't really matter what the LAW said about this, because it would only be the ecclesiastics who saw the baptism register and if they were called on to provide a baptism cert, well, they wrote what they thought was suitable under the circumstances.

OC

[Penelope]

One of my illegitimate ancestors was the grandson of a longstanding churchwarden, and his 'illegitimate' entry was never crossed out. He was also apprenticed around 1800, as were most of the 18thC illegitimate children - who survived into adulthood - in this parish, too - in fact here, two parish clerks in a row were themselves illegitimate and both apprenticed to trades (one a shoemaker, another a tailor). Often the monety raised from bastardy bonds went to aprentice a child, in fact it was the point of tracing the child's paternity, to compel the man to pay for the child to be apprenticed at a later date, wasn't it? Seems the practice round here, anyways. Illegitimacy - in the 18thC and early 19thC, seems to have been no bar to getting an education enough to keep the parish records (implying a level of literacy more advanced than manyu of their peers) and to get a trade.

[Guy]

Sorry but I beg to differ!

At the discretion of the Vicar/Bishop, whoever, a child could be legitimised by the later marriage of his parents and I have seen "illegitimate" scrubbed out several times.

This was to give the child a fighting chance in life, when being illegitimate was a real drawback and closed many avenues, including apprenticeships and entry to a profession.

I am talking 1600s/1700s here, with a bit of a hangover into the 1800s. It doesn't really matter what the LAW said about this, because it would only be the ecclesiastics who saw the baptism register and if they were called on to provide a baptism cert, well, they wrote what they thought was suitable under the circumstances.

OC

Unlikely that the vicar would scrub out any entry as he would be leaving himself open to serious fines and ecclesiastical censorship.

More likely a member of the public has scrubbed out the entry in Victorian times to cleanse their family tree.

Never forget the public have always had access to parish registers, it is a myth that the registers were only consulted by the clergy.
Cheers
Guy

[Olde Crone Holden]

Thankyou for putting me right on that, Guy.

OC

[Sussex Maid]

OC and Guy - thank you for the information
I have requested a copy of the baptism from the Bishop Transcripts.
I raised the query because there were two other sons baptised at the same church, in 1852 and 1854, and their entries listed Martha only as the parent without any comments from the vicar, and I was slightly confused.
Just to mention that Samuel jnr died in 1853.
thank you all for your interest and comments