QUAKER-ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > QUAKER-ROOTS > 2000-04 > 0954773218


From: Thomas Hamm <>
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Children born out of wedlock in the 1800s
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:46:58 -0500
References: <010201bf9b98$07797d80$eb55e1cf@computer>
In-Reply-To: <010201bf9b98$07797d80$eb55e1cf@computer>


>How was illegitimacy handled by the Quakers? In this case the
>mother kept the child and married an understanding man who gave the
>child a name. The newly-weds then moved out of state and told
>everyone they had been married two years longer then they had.
>[Yes, Keith, this is the same one.]
>
>I haven't been able to find the child in any Quaker records however
>I believe the mother was still a practicing Quaker after the move.
>I have checked using the mother's surname, the birth-father's and
>the step-father's. Does anyone have any ideas?
>
>Carole in Portland
>

Having a child out of wedlock was an offense against the Discipline,
and in every case I've seen resulted in disownment. In some cases,
the mother later rejoined Friends after condemning her misconduct.
And of course being disowned did not prevent her from still attending
meeting or worship or living by Quaker standards and practices in
other ways.

The rule may have varied among yearly meetings, but in most yearly
meetings a child born out of wedlock was not considered a birthright
member. Of course, if the mother later regained her membership, she
could request membership for the child.

You don't give a date for this case; the above answer would hold true
for all bodies of Friends until about 1870. After that, most Friends
relaxed the Discipline considerably, although my sense is that they
still tended to act against anything that involved sexual impropriety.

This thread: