Calling Tudor social history buffs

[Stanwix England]

Hello,

Just wanted to run this by those in the know to see if it seems reasonable. I think it is but I'd like a second opinion.

I'm looking at some transcriptions of records from the 1560s and I think I've been able to track a little bit of a story about one family. I don't think I need to share the full details, just the general idea.

Basically based on a baptism record and a marriage I believe that the women in question was about 5 months pregnant when she got married.

The struggle I always have when it comes to making a conclusion like this is that you get such conflicting views when you look at social history. Some sources I have read would have you believe that pre-marital sex was invented in the 1960s and yet others I have read suggest that women getting married once already pregnant was fairly common throughout history especially in rural communities.

I'd love to hear your views.

[StanleysChesterton]

Being pregnant before you're married wasn't a recent invention.  Indeed, for some people, it was almost compulsory as they wanted to know that you could produce an heir before they married you.  Producing an heir was one of the primary purposes of marriage.  To join together two estates/families/wealth by marriage, which would require an heir to continue the line forward with the total sum of their accumulated trappings.

As you've got documents from the 1500s I'm assuming they had a few bob - and weren't run of the mill peasants.

[Stanwix England]

Thank you StanleysChesterton, that is what I thought. You just see such conflicting views in books sometimes.

I haven't got the documents it's transcriptions of church records so I'm just piecing stuff together in a loosey goosey experimental way.

It is one of those moments that makes me stand back and appreciate the power of genealogy. I find it incredible that I can look at a few records and work out what ordinary people were doing and the decisions they made more than 400 years ago.

[Viktoria]

Farmers too wanted to know that they would have children, especially sons to pass their land to.
It was no shame for a woman  to be pregnant or even have a child by the man she   was to marry.
Being betrothed was almost as binding as marriage and was a legal situation hence "breach of promise" which could be decided in court and appropriate recompense had to be paid. probably because it was expected that the couple would have "relations" before marriage and if the contract was broken, especially by the man then the woman was considered to be" second hand".
Widows were much sought after as they would often have some property and had children and would probably have more to their second husband.
 Viktoria.

[larkspur]

Was Ann Boleyn not pregnant when King Henry VIII married her??

[groom]

Was Ann Boleyn not pregnant when King Henry VIII married her??

Yes, at first she refused to "grant him any favours" until they were married but gave in, and in December 1532 was pregnant. That forced Henry into action and, so that the child would be legitimate, in  January 1533 Henry VIII and Anne were married in a secret ceremony.

[Greensleeves]

I agree with what has already been posted: in the past it was vital for the marriage to have issue, and thus provide an heir,  so it was not uncommon for the wedding to come after conception and at a time when there was a realistic expectation that the child would be carried to full term.  I believe it was the Victorian morality which frowned on such things; prior to that as long as a child was born in wedlock I don't think any eyebrows were raised!  Mind you, if the marriage didn't take place for some reason, that was another matter altogether.  One poor woman in my FT whose partner did not marry her is marked down in the 1851 census under occupation as 'Concubine'!