Illegitimacy and Marriage

[Arthur_Connelly]

Does anyone have any information about medieval views of illegitimacy, aside from the various Wikipedia articles? One of my characters is illegitimate and one of the subplots concerns her marriage to a knight not of gentle birth. Initially, the story takes place in a trading city where the fact of her birth is treated more like a dirty secret than anything else. However, the story does shift to a more conservative region where the knowledge isn't so well known.


I'm wondering if her illegitimacy is essentially "erased" after her marriage because she would take on the status of her husband. Or would her birth continue to be a social stigma? I know that attitudes change drastically, even within a relatively short period of time, and this is fantasy. The work is roughly based on early 16th century Europe, if that helps. I'm wondering if I've treated it the right way, in that some people make jokes, others simply don't care, and a few act as if she has eye stalks and tentacles.

 

[dustinzgirl]

People have long memories, and I would say that it would bring her husband's status DOWN rather than raiser hers up.

It would be the modern day social stigma equivalent of a politician marrying a prostitute. People wouldn't just let that go.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't think so, Dusty. It would depend on whose illegitimate daughter she was (if up the social scale, it could help him). A knight who was not of gentle birth would be on uncertain social ground himself, and would be glad of any grand relatives he could get, even if on the wrong side of the blanket -- or, if her father, for instance, were a rich tradesman, and she brought a dowery sufficient to help him maintain his position as a knight, then the advantages and disadvantages could split about even. In medieval society, who your parents were could matter as much as whether they were married or not.

 

[The Judge]

I haven't read the wiki articles, so this might be repeating what you already know.

In England, at least, there was a very low level of illegitimacy - I have a table showing illegit. births as a proportion of all births, and for 1700-4 (the earliest it shows) it's 1.8, compared to 6.8 in 1845-9 and 21 in 1986. This was undoubtedly the result of great social pressure -- public disgrace, financial ruin, a loss of marriage prospects for the woman, at least -- as well as obedience to the moral and religious teachings of the time. So illegitimate children would have been comparatively rare, which alone would produce an alienating effect on some people.

Undoubtedly there would have been an issue of 'sins of the father' - after all, the child is hardly to blame for its parents' deeds, but nonetheless would have been tainted by them. I think a lot, though, would depend on the status of the child's father. A son born to a king, albeit the wrong side of the blanket, would still have been treated with respect; the 'nephews' of the higher clergy would have found their paths through life eased.

The legal consequences in England related to inheritance - so an illegit child wouldn't inherit from the father unless specific provision was made in the Will. I know this was different in Wales though (at least until the 1100s). Since marriage among the middle and upper classes was very much a financial matter, this would immediately cause problems - though again, if the father acknowledged the child and agreed on a settlement for a daughter, this would obviate some difficulty.

As to people's attitudes after her marriage, I imagine these would as varied as you have written them. Some people would undoubtedly continue to look down on her because of her birth; others would be more swayed by her marital rank and wealth.


PS sorry, my post crossed with Teresa's so I'm repeating what she's said.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

You know, I think legally her illegitimacy would be erased by marriage to a noble, but that still wouldn't keep people from talking about it behind her and her husband's back.


A major part of such, though, was HOW her husband reached knighthood, if he wasn't of gentle birth. His own legitimacy might be in question unless he was knighted by a member of the royal family....

 

[Arthur_Connelly]

Her father is a nobleman, but of the sort with more wealth than anything. He acknowledged her birth and provided a pretty nice dowry. As to her husband, he's foreign and from a country where knighthood is more like a battlefield commission.

 

[The Judge]

If her father is wealthy and titled and has acknowledged her, then I think most people would accept her. Money tends to talk very loudly in situations like this.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Knighthood does not confer nobility, Manarion. A knight is a fancy kind of commoner -- unless he's already a nobleman or a nobleman's son.

If the wife is the acknowledged daughter of a nobleman, Arthur, and she comes with money, it's all good for the husband. Depending on how high her father ranks, she could conceivably be marrying down if her husband is of no birth at all and was knighted on the battlefield.

However, I don't know what you mean by her father being a nobleman with more wealth than anything. If he was a nobleman, he would almost certainly have land, if he didn't and he had the money and influence to acquire it, he would.

 

[Dave]

In England, at least, there was a very low level of illegitimacy - I have a table showing illegit. births as a proportion of all births, and for 1700-4 (the earliest it shows) it's 1.8, compared to 6.8 in 1845-9 and 21 in 1986.

My hobby is family history. I see a lot of births less than 9 months after the parents marriage - sometimes only a few months after. As far as I am aware pregnancy terms have not got longer! Also, Parish Records are very patchy so those 1845-9 figures (after National Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages became Law) are much more accurate than the 1700-4 ones.

However, I don't disagree with what the Judge said, just that the figures might not be that accurate. That would still be the trend, increasing over time.

There were many illegitimate Royal births. The King could sire any number of illegitimate children and often these were provided for with annuities, without any admission of responsibility.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Knighthood does not confer nobility, Manarion. A knight is a fancy kind of commoner -- unless he's already a nobleman or a nobleman's son.

Yes, which is really why I was saying it. Knights DID rank above peasant no matter their birth-the ranks TENDED to go serf, peasant, esquire, knight, then into the nobility ranks as baronet, baron, count, etc....


The whole thing is, even if she suffered disrespect for being illegitimate, she would gain plenty of respect by way of her husband, whether he was of nobility or not. The common folk tended to pay due respect to knights-mostly because they were death machines, so to speak.

 

[Ursa major]

In a thread which some of us have read only recently, the legend of Pope Joan was mentioned. I thought I'd have a look at the Wiki entry and found mention of Pope John XI. His term of office (931-935) was slap bang in the middle of the mediaeval period.

His family history is interesting. His father was reputed to be Pope Sergius III. His mother, Marozia, was apparently the ruler of Rome at that time; the reputations of Marozia's and of her mother, Theodora, were not exactly spotless.

For further information, see:

Pope John XI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marozia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theodora (10th century) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[The Judge]

My hobby, too, Dave and you're not the only one to have noticed the, ahem, seemingly premature births! But there is a difference between illegitimacy and pre-nuptial conception -- indeed, it appears to have been the case, at least by 1849 when Lord Brougham commented on it, for couples "particularly I am sorry to say in the northern counties, to make a bargain to live together, and only to marry if there is pregnancy. That is a very common case, no doubt, and common in Scotland too, I apprehend." Tut, tut.

As far as the table is concerned, it's actually based on a sample of 98 parishes, and pre-1834 is presumably looking at baptismal records principally, so yes, the figures won't be entirely accurate.** Another figure in my trusty 'Road to Divorce' is a rise in bastardy between 1690 and 1790 from 6% to 20% of all first births.

Of course, apart from moral/religious issues, one of the reasons for social disapproval is the fact that an unmarried woman with an illegitimate child is likely to need some kind of poor relief - meaning a burden on local taxpayers. The higher up the social chain you went, the less that was a factor in people's eyes.

Something else that occurred to me is to wonder whether the stigma of illegitimacy is based in part on the patrilineal system of inheritance. Obviously that's a major factor in the question of a wife's adultery and the foisting of another man's child on her husband, but would there be such a stigma for children born wholly out of wedlock if women had greater property rights down the ages and inheritance was through the maternal line?


**Interestingly enough, that table shows a decrease through the rest of the 19th century, perhaps as Victorian morality and social programmes took hold, and the 6.8 isn't equalled again until WWII.

 

[Ursa major]

As an aside, I believe that in nineteenth century France, the husband of a woman bearing a child was legally the father, whatever the circumstances of the conception. How far back this rule went, and whether it was applied in other countries, I don't know.

 

[Arthur_Connelly]

However, I don't know what you mean by her father being a nobleman with more wealth than anything. If he was a nobleman, he would almost certainly have land, if he didn't and he had the money and influence to acquire it, he would.

I had him as more merchant than lord. He does have land, just not a great deal of it. This might be where fantasy and reality have a clash, since he's not acquiring any while lords definitely want land for practical reasons. (i.e. more land means more money in taxes and a larger population to levy).

The father isn't going after land because he wants to run his business well enough to have something to pass on to his legitimate heir. And partly because land is harder to come by with far too many noble families around. The lack of land becomes important later because colonization is launched to make up for it and the number of bored young men with no enemies to fight and no land to inherit.

It might be doubly unrealistic because he's doing the trading himself. But he wouldn't have been able to arrange the marriage otherwise (at least the way I've written it).

Definitely some things to think about, like the fact that I seemed to have forgotten about how money does indeed change people's minds. (A poor guy wearing cardboard slippers and a paisley cape is a madman, while a rich one is an eccentric). A large enough dowry probably would make some men forget her birth, at least the younger noble sons who wouldn't inherit anything anyway.

And illegitimacy wasn't the same for everyone. How many people even think about Leonardo da Vinci being born out of wedlock? Of course, his achievements are largely the reason for that, but still.

 

[The Judge]

That was basically the law here also, Ursa. I can't off the top of my head recall whether the husband of an otherwise cohabiting married couple could try to prove the child wasn't his and so avoid legal responsibility - I suspect not, not unless he divorced her (by no means a simple matter). If the couple were privately separated, then a child conceived after separation was deemed legitimate unless proved otherwise - ie the husband would have to prove he couldn't be the father. If they had gone through a judical separation then the child was illegitimate unless proved otherwise - ie the wife would have to prove he was the father.

Another interesting snippet**: in 1769 Lady Sarah Bunbury left her husband taking her illegitimate baby with her as "her conscience would not allow her to impose a child upon her husband", to which Princess Amelia commented that such an attitude was "quite new". miaow.


**or not. Sorry I could bore for England on some topics!

 

[The Judge]

Sorry to double post, Arthur, but our posts crossed. Teresa will know a lot more about this than I, but for myself alarm bells are ringing at the idea of a nobleman being 'more merchant than lord'. In the 1500s the two things were all but mutually exclusive. Yes, you had people like Cromwell being elevated to high position after humble beginnings, but they were rarities - it didn't happen to your average merchant. And the high position brought wealth with it - it isn't like nowadays when it seems anyone who gives a couple of quid to a political party gets made Baron Thisthatandtheother. As for the idea that a nobleman by birth would soil his hands in commerce...

Of course, in your fantasy you can have anything you want, but if I read this kind of thing in a book, unless it was made clear how this otherwise strange situation had arisen I think I would feel my hackles rising.

As for illegitimacy, no it's not the first thing we think of Leonardo - but we're not his contemporaries. The question is, what did his fellow think of him and his mother.

 

[Arthur_Connelly]

Sorry to double post, Arthur, but our posts crossed. Teresa will know a lot more about this than I, but for myself alarm bells are ringing at the idea of a nobleman being 'more merchant than lord'. In the 1500s the two things were all but mutually exclusive. Yes, you had people like Cromwell being elevated to high position after humble beginnings, but they were rarities - it didn't happen to your average merchant. And the high position brought wealth with it - it isn't like nowadays when it seems anyone who gives a couple of quid to a political party gets made Baron Thisthatandtheother. As for the idea that a nobleman by birth would soil his hands in commerce...

That's true, what with the estates of the realm and all. Merchants were purely of the third-estate and a nobleman "slumming" would have been scandalous (or laughable depending on the person). But if people will accept wizards and were-haddocks, they might look the other way.

EDIT: If he's the sort to provide for his *******, then it might be within his character not to care what others think. Maybe.

 

[Ursa major]

Could a distant relation of a nobleman be a merchant? (I'm thinking xth son of an xth son.) Could this distant relation find out that he's heir to, and then possessor of, the title?

As to the lack of lands, they could have been confiscated or otherwise taken long before the merchant became involved. (Does your world have gambling, for instance?)

 

[The Ace]

Err, a little moment in the Eleventh century:

The ******* son of the tanner's daughter of Falaise, attempts to make himself overlord of the ******* son of the miller's daughter of Forteviot.

History remembers them as William I (the conqueror) of England and Malcolm III Canmore of Scots.

Malcolm's little subterfuge that day sent William back South but Edward I used it as an excuse.

Strangely, although illegitimacy can be reversed by the subsequent marriage of the parents, neither Robert the Devil nor Duncan I made any effort to legitimise their sons.

 

[Arthur_Connelly]

As to the lack of lands, they could have been confiscated or otherwise taken long before the merchant became involved. (Does your world have gambling, for instance?)

There's something akin to the Hippodrome, so betting on the ponies maybe.

Here's a question. Her children would be legitimate, based on the fact that she's married to their father. Would they then have any claim to her father's estate? Or would it be a sort of one way legitimacy with the children only being able to inherit through their father's line.

Strangely, although illegitimacy can be reversed by the subsequent marriage of the parents, neither Robert the Devil nor Duncan I made any effort to legitimise their sons.

How far back would that go? If the kids are already half-grown, could that still be pulled off?