Were single mothers better off in the 19th Century?

atush

SkyeKnight wrote: »

Really? I actually thought it was quite interesting - I didn't know people got benefits in the 1800s - at least not in quite such an organised way.

I think the "ruined, unemployable, shunned" thing came a bit later with the Victorians. I imagine for most of history single mothers were very common and the article says "the birth of illegitimate children to errant fathers was massively widespread during this period in history".

There may have been benefits of some kind some places (not all), but not like today. And they were not accepted into polite society even then. It is quite a ridiculous argument IMHO.

I don't think ANY mothers wer better off then, as being a mother was the leading cause of death in women. I would have died during my first CB back then for sure. But then again, I would nto have been having my first baby at 30 as I would have been dead from somehting else or been sold off in marriage ;-)

Generali

pqrdef wrote: »

People weren't expected to support their children beyond school-leaving age. If they were entitled to parish relief, they took it. Generally they couldn't afford not to.

But the general rule in that era was that the able-bodied couldn't get parish relief except by entering the workhouse. Otherwise, her parents may have been happy enough to have her at home.

Also, by that time, some workhouse maternity wards had acquired a reputation as a good place to have a baby, and girls with jobs would sometimes pauperise themselves to get in.

AIUI, the workhouse wasn't as pervasive as some would have you believe. While the New Poor Law meant that the 'able bodied poor' were supposed to only get poverty relief via the workhouse system it wasn't always the case. In Bradford for example, the Poor Law Guardians (rate payers that were charged with administering welfare) sold their 3 workhouses in the late 1830s and gave all poor people 'outdoor relief'.

atush

I think the report was written by a man lol.

jfh7gwa

atush wrote: »

I don't think ANY mothers wer better off then, as being a mother was the leading cause of death in women. I would have died during my first CB back then for sure.

Likewise. Complications with my first would have meant that, without medical intervention, I likely wouldn't have been here to discuss this sort of thing, and DS wouldn't have been around to miss me. I sometimes forget that, had I been born just 100 years earlier, the outcome would have been very different.

(And I suppose I could say the same thing for having been born in a country with decent access to medical care; I'm very well aware that had I been born into some countries of the world today, the outcome would have likely been the same as if I were in 1800s England.)

Depressing thoughts, really!

pqrdef

atush wrote: »

And they were not accepted into polite society even then.

That sort of attitude arose when the masses got all educated and aspirational and socially mobile. There was no need for it when boundaries were fixed.

Nobody in polite society ever went on parish relief, because that class always looked after its own. In Jane Austen's Emma, Harriet Smith is illegitimate and penniless, but hasn't even had to find a job (the unmentionable peril that hangs over Mr Bennet's five daughters).

Illegitimacy posed no problems that money couldn't solve. If the father couldn't be bribed to marry the mother, you could bribe somebody else. Children could be taken into wardship by somebody who could afford them - no large wealthy household seems to have been complete without one or two extra kids of remote provenance.

Of course Emma herself had her own money and saw no need ever to marry. That wouldn't preclude her from being the mistress of a duke or even a prince, having a string of his children, and still being invited to the best parties.

But the masses were never going to be accepted into polite society, because even if they had morals, they had no money, and even if they had money, they had no class.

But they didn't worry about kids being illegitimate, because it only affected the right to inherit, and they didn't expect to be doing much of that.

It was very common for brides to be pregnant at the altar. This was generally justified as a policy of try-before-you-buy, to ensure that the girl wasn't infertile.

And plenty of husbands died, and others deserted. so marriage didn't really make that much difference. Step-parents were almost as common as blood parents. There were generally plenty of men who'd take on a family in return for housekeeping and a warm bed, because single men were incapable of keeping house for themselves, so the only alternative lifestyles on offer were digs or a living-in job.

Generali

AIUI if you go back to agrarian times, it would be highly unusual to marry not pregnant or with a child already. You wouldn't want to marry if you couldn't have kids!

Jimmy_31

MrRee wrote: »

I was paintballing when you were in nappies, boy.

Doesnt answer my question.