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]

Redacted

[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]

Redacted

[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