(If there is such a word)
I was wondering: in Victorian times, if a man fathered a child out of wedlock, could he legally acknowledge the child as his, and if so would said child have a better social and legal status than a Nobody’s son?
IANA historian, but I’m pretty sure bastard children, mostly sons, were well known during that time period, assuming the father was someone of standing.
And yes, I assume they would get special treatment if the father was sufficiently wealthy. They normally wouldn’t be in line to inherit a title.
A nobody’s son from a milkmaid would have access to less schooling or apprenticing and worse contacts than a married milkmaid’s son.
A byblow a rich man had from the milkmaid would be better off than the married milkmaid’s son but worse off than the rich man’s legitimate son.
Which country? I presume you mean England. Things may be different in the rest of Britain.
Wikipedia suggests that it wasn’t until:
[: if two unwed people have a child, and later marry, their child was no longer a bastard. Previous to this (i.e. Victorian era), they were always a bastard.
[URL=“Legitimacy Act 1959 - Wikipedia”]1959](Legitimacy Act 1926 - Wikipedia): one could become legitimate by the parent’s marriage. Previously, you were SOL if one parent war married when you were born or in the interim.
Goddamn SDMB decided to time out multiple times when I tried to edit. Here’s the first link:
And… I guess medieval Westeros is more progressive (ahem, in some ways) than 400-years later England.
I learned a new word, “by-blow.” I guess I should be embarrassed that English is my native language, but I’ll accept it if Nava was the one who brought it up…
It depends on what you mean by “Victorian”. In the early Victorian era (say uptil 1850) a lot of the earlier Georgian mores were still applicable. A man was expected to make some provisions for his child and it was not unknown to acknowledge the child as his own.
Post 1850 or so, society became a lot more conservative. Bastards were no longer acknowledged generally. Some provisions for them might be made or the might not, it depended on the whim of the individual in question, although many men did in fact make such provisions, it was a lot easier to simply refuse to get involved.
If both parties were middle class, passing the child off as someone elses, or getting it adopted was common.
Edward VII is thought to have had several bastards, which he never acknowledged.
To follow up on AK84’s post, the difference is social attitudes is well-illustrated by Edward’s great-uncle, William IV, who had an entire family of about ten children with his long-term companion, the actress Mrs Jordan. After he became King, William gave his eldest son the title of Earl of Munster, and recognised the younger children. They all took the surname “FitzClarence” after William’s title of Duke of Clarence.
Anecdote about William and Mrs Jordan. Who was an actress.
After they had been together for several years, and a few kids, he found himself in financial difficulties and advised her that he was going to have to cut back on the allowance he gave her.
She responded by sending him a torn-off portion from an advertisement from a theatre, which read: “No Refunds after The Curtain Has Been Raised.”
By the mid-victorian period, if the father was rich or noble, and the mother came from a respectable family (as opposed to a servant or a prostitute, i.e. if family might make trouble for the father), then some arrangement was made, and the the child was quietly set up in life somewhere, although not usually recognized. This is in contrast to the preceding several centuries, when bastards were routinely recognized and often raised with the legitimate children.