Were single mothers better off in the 19th Century?

[LemonAndLime]

"If a single pregnant mother wanted to claim poor relief before 1834, she had to go before two judicial officers and swear on the paternity of her child’s father under oath. No other proof was needed. She would then receive benefits up front and the officials would try to reclaim money back from the father.

The “bastardy examinations” - as they were called - required the father to pay back all the childbirth expenses, the legal expenses it cost to pursue him and regular maintenance payments for the child, similar to child maintenance payments today.

If the father couldn’t be found, the parish would support the woman. It was quite a financial undertaking as the birth of illegitimate children to errant fathers was massively widespread during this period in history, says Williams.

Lone mothers could receive up to 37% of the income of neighbouring working households, according to the study, which does not cover lone fathers. Extras such as fuel, clothing and rent payments contributed another 8%.

But wages and average living standards were extremely low and 45% would actually amount to very little, say historians. According to Williams, in 1834 the weekly wage of an average agricultural worker was nine shillings. It’s the equivalent of 45p and would be worth just under £48 today, according to the Bank of England’s inflation calculator. A lone mother would get just over four shillings a week, roughly the equivalent of 20p, which would be worth an estimated £19 today."

Thoughts?

Above taken from the article - bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17159966

 

[CB_Catholic]

"If a single pregnant mother wanted to claim poor relief before 1834, she had to go before two judicial officers and swear on the paternity of her child’s father under oath. No other proof was needed. She would then receive benefits up front and the officials would try to reclaim money back from the father.

The “bastardy examinations” - as they were called - required the father to pay back all the childbirth expenses, the legal expenses it cost to pursue him and regular maintenance payments for the child, similar to child maintenance payments today.

If the father couldn’t be found, the parish would support the woman. It was quite a financial undertaking as the birth of illegitimate children to errant fathers was massively widespread during this period in history, says Williams.

Lone mothers could receive up to 37% of the income of neighbouring working households, according to the study, which does not cover lone fathers. Extras such as fuel, clothing and rent payments contributed another 8%.

But wages and average living standards were extremely low and 45% would actually amount to very little, say historians. According to Williams, in 1834 the weekly wage of an average agricultural worker was nine shillings. It’s the equivalent of 45p and would be worth just under £48 today, according to the Bank of England’s inflation calculator. A lone mother would get just over four shillings a week, roughly the equivalent of 20p, which would be worth an estimated £19 today."

Thoughts?

Above taken from the article - bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17159966

I doubt they were better off at all. Haven’t you read any of Charles Dickens? The social conditions for such people on the fringe of society and the poor were abominable.

However, I am not British, so it’s really not my place to answer.

I know, from my experience as the child of a single divorced Mother in the US as late as the 1950’s, it was very difficult. Child support laws were not strictly enforced, my Mother got no spiritual or monetary support whatsoever from the Church (because of her divorce), nothing in the form of public assistance, and she had to put her children into the custody of her parents because she could not make enough to support them.

The early part of the 20th Century was not much better than the 19th, I would say.

 

[manualman]

I doubt it. By then English society still hadn’t recovered from the way Cromwell had looted the longstanding bulwark against starvation and exposure; the religious communities.

I have a cousin who had a crisis pregnancy in her teens and, to her eternal credit, decided to bear and raise her child. She receives WIC, gets an impressively nice section 8 apartment for peanuts, has received an almost entirely grant based education and manages to get by on irregular employment somehow.

I rather doubt this was the case 200 years ago.

 

[ValPal]

I live in the U.S., and serious doubt that single women were better off in the past. Using my own family and that of my in-laws as examples, there were no single women. They married young and stayed marriage. In some cases the husband died, and they were quickly remarried since it was difficult to support themselves otherwise.

 

[BillP]

I doubt it. By then English society still hadn’t recovered from the way Cromwell had looted the longstanding bulwark against starvation and exposure; the religious communities.

I believe Henry VIII had vastly more impact on the religious communities than Cromwell, having dissolved the monasteries and sold their assets to his cronies…

 

[LemonAndLime]

I live in the U.S., and serious doubt that single women were better off in the past. Using my own family and that of my in-laws as examples, there were no single women. They married young and stayed marriage. In some cases the husband died, and they were quickly remarried since it was difficult to support themselves otherwise.

The article was about women in the UK so its completely different, but it would be interesting to hear about the difference in the US during the same time period.

 

[Dale_M]

The article was about women in the UK so its completely different, but it would be interesting to hear about the difference in the US during the same time period.

I know little about the topic, but here is a semi-academic article about US poor relief during in early America.
socialwelfarehistory.com/programs/poor-relief/

One notable difference, I think, with England is that in the US poor people could be auctioned off to the lowest (not highest) bidder in what amounted to indentured servitude. Here are some records from 1832 about three women.
poorhousestory.com/AUCTION_POOR.htm

No mention of children is made, so I can’t say whether or not they had any. I suspect that single women who were poor and were deemed “undeserving” may have lost custody of their children.

 

[manualman]

I believe Henry VIII had vastly more impact on the religious communities than Cromwell, having dissolved the monasteries and sold their assets to his cronies…

Birds of a feather…