victorian morality

[Roli]

In all this chat about pre-present generation morality, I may be missing the point but I thought I read that it was NORMAL for a woman to be pregnant before marriage.  This was simply to prove she was fertile and could produce heirs, (workers) to grow up and support the family in the then harder times when there was no state support. If she didn't become pregnant the man looked for a wife elsewhere - or am I being cynical?

[Bellejazz]

In light of what I have discovered about my great great Granny, who married in 1892, divorced in 1894 (with a man named as a co-respondent on the divorce index), shacked up with another bloke (not divorce co-respondent) for 10 years and had 4 illegitimate children to him, married a different man again in 1918, apparently never told anyone about her first born son (my 3x Grandfather) as he does not appear on her death certificate, and used several different aliases (making it very hard to find out all this info about her) I am leaning towards a YES vote!

 

- Belinda.

[trish251]

In all this chat about pre-present generation morality, I may be missing the point but I thought I read that it was NORMAL for a woman to be pregnant before marriage.  This was simply to prove she was fertile and could produce heirs, (workers) to grow up and support the family in the then harder times when there was no state support. If she didn't become pregnant the man looked for a wife elsewhere - or am I being cynical?

I well remember my father telling me "I wouldn't buy second hand goods" - so it wasn't considered the thing to do in my part of the world. (Not that this stopped anyone    ) I do remember hearing some  stories about some family members who didn't have any children - late 19th early 20th century - it always seemed to be "An act of God" or "God's will" - with the occasional "punishment for past sins.

Trish

[adee7]

A while back I learned of a man who, when his wife died,
remarried and moved to Australia.  The three children of
his first marriage were found in an English workhouse in
the next census.


Kathleen

[lesleyhannah]

The poll above seems to show that most people don't think we're moral than the Victorians. Do they believe the Victorians were more moral than we are? Or, like me, do they think human nature hasn't changed much either way?

[Bellejazz]

A while back I learned of a man who, when his wife died,
remarried and moved to Australia.  The three children of
his first marriage were found in an English workhouse in
the next census.
Kathleen

oh dear!
that's not very nice is it? 

- Belinda.

[MarieC]

The poll above seems to show that most people don't think we're moral than the Victorians. Do they believe the Victorians were more moral than we are? Or, like me, do they think human nature hasn't changed much either way?

Well, Lesley,

As one who voted as you outlined, I don't think human nature has changed much.  The Victorians proclaimed themselves to be very moral, but one doesn't have to dig too far below the surface to find that they weren't any more moral than we are.  I prefer honesty to disguise, myself!

MarieC

[lesleyhannah]

  I prefer honesty to disguise, myself!

MarieC

Hear, hear!!

[adee7]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Marie. 



Kathleen