Interval between marriage and christening of first child

[LizzieL]

I have just discovered that ancestors of mine married on 14th April 1822 and baptised their first child on 28th April 1822. So assuming the child was baptised very soon after birth, the bride must have been VERY pregnant when she walked down the aisle.
This seems to be leaving it extremely late, given that surely she would know she was pregnant at least 6 months earlier.

The other possibility is that the child was born before marriage and baptised after they married. But I would have expected something to say the child was illegitimate in the baptism register if that was the case. The records in that particular church have many many illegitimate births clearly stated and in many cases naming the father, so it looks as if the priest or clerk was quite thorough at record keeping.

Has anyone else come across similar "11th hour" marriages

[lizdb]

Perhaps they deloberatly waited till after their marriage till they had the baby christened for that very reason. They could present the child together as a married couple, having legitimised the birth, so it would be enterred as such.

[BumbleB]

How about the birth of a daughter on THE SAME DAY as the marriage of the parents and some 17 miles apart.

10 April 1861 - marriage at St Peter, Leeds
10 April 1861 - birth of daughter at Tadcaster (or so her birth certificate says  )

[chris_49]

My grandmother was born just before her parents' marriage and registered after it, to legitimise her. I've not yet found her baptism but I expect that was delayed too. They married across the Mersey (family members knew this) but giving seemingly bogus addresses. They also lied about her age, sending her to school a year late! My father only discovered his mother's true age after she died!
   

[Koromo]

From The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800, as quoted on an old post on the RootWeb List for Hampshire:

In the eighteenth century it looks as if the spousals (i.e. betrothal) again became the generally accepted moment at which sexual relations could begin, the marriage ceremony occurring later, often when the bride was quite far advanced in pregnancy. The man's honour was not damaged in the public consciousness, provided that he lived up to his promise to marry despite any possible second thoughts he might subsequently have had; and the woman's honour was not damaged in the public consciousness merely for having commenced sexual relations after the spousals but before the marriage.

newsfeed.rootsweb.com/th/read/HAMPSHIRE/2001-02/0982782632

[lisalucie]

My g g grandad was born two months after his parents married (their eldest son was born two years prior). Therefore he was registered with his dad's surname BUT his baptism record records him with his moms surname and says "son of sarah". I've always just thought the minister was just being a bit stroppy lol x

[c-side]

I, too, have a marriage two weeks before a baptism and a few other close calls.

In 1822 a subsequent marriage would not have legitimised a child - it stayed illegitimate forever 

Believe it or not that didn't change until the Legitimacy Act of 1926 which had restrictions.  Those restrictions were not lifted until 1959!

[lisalucie]

I, too, have a marriage two weeks before a baptism and a few other close calls.

In 1822 a subsequent marriage would not have legitimised a child - it stayed illegitimate forever  :'(

Believe it or not that didn't change until the Legitimacy Act of 1926 which had restrictions.  Those restrictions were not lifted until 1959!

I didn't know that c-side...so maybe the minister in my case wasn't being stroppy then, just being precise lol. 
On a side note, (most of this particular line had at least two children before they married) I've also seen on the marriage register for the one girl (20 years after her birth) "illegitimate daughter of ....". That minister just wouldn't let it lie!!! X

[ThrelfallYorky]

I've always supposed that many felt that they'd better check out that they could breed a family before tying themselves up until death did them part, so it was as well to make sure. I've often seen one child born to the mother, prior to marriage, then stated as "Son" to head of household all the way through, with the family surname, and often taking over the family land - so would assume no-one had any doubts!