Marjorie Priser wrote:
Being "with child" at the time of marriage is nothing new. My
question is, why, in so many cases, is the date of marriage only a
couple of months before the birth... rather than 6 months before the
birth, when it would seem that knowledge of the pending birth became a
fact. (I'm not asking about TODAY... I'm asking about mid to late
1800's)
I have a feeling that there is something that I am not taking into
account... and that there really is a sound, reasonable reason why
this happened.
Will welcome any "reasons"... and discussion.
Respectfully submitted, marge priser
Hi Everyone,
I think that the reason may be that girls were kept very innocent in the
mid to late 1800's. They probably didn't realize they were pregnant
until someone (a parent) noticed that they were "increasing", probably
at 6 to 7 months. People did not go to doctors unless they were SICK.
Even doctors back then probably couldn't tell untill the girl was at
least 3 months pregnant. I don't even think doctors delivered most of
the children then. Delivery was done at home with the local midwife or
the most (childbirth) experienced female in attendence.
When you think about it, did girls even know that doing THAT, could
eventually produce a child? How innocent were girls back then?
Jackie Nobles
jimn(a)vh.net