James Nobles wrote:
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
==== INKOSCIU Mailing List ====
Kosciusko Co, IN USGenWeb site
http://www.ctlnet.com/users/gan155/kosco.htm
Hi, Jackie and Marge and all - just want to jump in here and add
something - some of the time, in the early days, marriages were
performed by circuit riders who served several or many churches in their
"circuit," and you waited on them to come to your church or community to
perform the marriage ceremony. That might be one reason. Another
reason might be that the prospective groom was not there - away farming
for someone else, in the armed services, on a scouting trip, away
hunting, going to a fort or provisional store to get supplies - many
things could keep him away, and the betrothed just had to wait until he
came back. And from what I have read, it wasn't until the Victorian age
that premarital sex was looked upon as not proper. Then, too, certain
sects actually encouraged premarital sex (and I am thinking here of the
early Amish and a few other sects) because if a prospective husband
couldn't produce a family, and a prospective bride couldn't produce a
family, the family wouldn't approve of the marriage as there would be
noone to help them farm and to help take care of the older generation.
I believe the Amish call/called it bundling, and the illegitimate child
(if born before the wedding), was referred to as beishlof.
Sasha Stanley