Pregnant bride, 1600's

[Nick93]

Hey guys, do you know if it was common in 17th century Germany in a middle class Lutheran family for a betrothed couple to be intimate before getting married?

One woman I've found in my tree, a Lutheran reverend's daughter, gave birth to her first child (not my ancestor, I descend from her second husband) six months after her wedding to her first husband. And her granddaughter when she got married some decades later had her first baby exactly nine months and five days after her wedding, though granted that one doesn't necessarily imply premarital sex, she may have just gotten pregnant very early in the marriage. I suspect in rural areas it was more common but I wasn't sure if in the towns it happened so much.

[groom]

I would think that happened anywhere throughout history, so it's impossible to say if it was common - you wouldn't know anyway unless the woman became pregnant and the marriage had to be arranged in a hurry.

In the case of the granddaughter the baby could have been premature.

[smudwhisk]

I have an ancestor in Norfolk who married 17 Nov 1578 and the first child was baptised 16 Feb the following year.  The family were fairly well to do land owners / minor gentry.  The bride's first cousin was an Attorney General under Elizabeth I and a future Lord Chief Justice under James I and, among others, prosecuted Sir Walter Raleigh and the Gunpowder Plot conspirators.  I don't think it went down very well with her father because in his Will her husband didn't get a mention and nor did he mention her married name, just her first name and referred to her children.  Other siblings did leave her bequests.  Her husband was the local butcher and the money ran out a few generations later leading to my direct ancestors working in the East End of London as shoemakers in the early 1800s.  I suspect it caused a bit of a scandal at the time.

As Groom says, it wasn't completely uncommon through history, but depending on the status of the family it could have been quite a scandal.

[mirl]

I am sure it happened in all social levels, in all countries since Adam was a lad.

As my dear old dad used to say, "Boys will be boys, and girls will be mothers"

[Mowsehowse]

My understanding has been that it was necessary to prove fertility.  At a gentry level i suspect the more estate there was, the more an heir was needed, though clearly there is a fine line between being just free enough to secure the wedding, and so free the wedding never happened. 

[medpat]

To many being betrothed was the important fact, the wedding was the social nicety. Remember it's not that long ago that you could end up in court if you broke your engagement, it was called breach of promise.

The so called Victorian attitudes were not working class. Many lived together and hoped to afford a wedding before children arrived. My gt gt grandparents married 8 days before my gt grandmother arrived. That's what I call cutting it fine.

Taxes that had to be paid on weddings meant lots of working class or poverty stricken gentry couldn't afford the luxury of marriage and perhaps others helped pay for a marriage to help the pregnant bride get up the aisle.

[chris_49]

I'm surprised that anybody is ever surprised by pregnant brides and illegitimacy - it happened a lot in the last three centuries so why not the previous ones? I help run a library drop-in family history session and the usual reaction from newbies when we find this is "But they were so respectable!"

As for the upper echelons, the reason we see so few such cases amongst them is because there were proportionately so few of them anyway. Even one of George III's daughters had an illegitimate child - this was hushed up, whilst her brothers were fathering bastards all over the place, more or less publicly.

Chris (descended from at least three of my avatar. Only one of my grandparents conceived in wedlock.)

[jim1]

17 Nov 1578 and the first child was baptised 16 Feb the following year

Don't want to go off topic but to clarify:
16th. Feb. 1579 will be over a year later as the Julian calendar was in use at the time & the new year started on April 1st.

[aelfric]

17 Nov 1578 and the first child was baptised 16 Feb the following year

Don't want to go off topic but to clarify:
16th. Feb. 1579 will be over a year later as the Julian calendar was in use at the time & the new year started on April 1st.

Not April 1st, New Year in English records started Lady Day, March 25th