The Bastard

In 1974 American writer John Jakes had published the The Bastard, the first book in his American Bicentennial series. The main protagonist in that historical novel was seventeen years of age in 1770, placing his birth about 1753. Illegitimate children were not unusual at the time, but many, particularly in the lower and working classes were often discarded if not disowned. In upper class households things were often different. This post will be about this situation and the context in which the illegitimate child and the mother were generally treated in the late 1600's and into the following century in central Europe, with a case study. Simon Havel, my 6th great grandfather, had a sister Elisabeth who gave birth to an illegitimate child, Joseph, in about 1693, the only illegitimate child which I recall having located  so far located in the family tree. (Although there are some conceived before marriage.) He was found not in the parish registers, but in a land register. The oldest available parish record of which I am aware and digitized for the village goes back to 1694. What I found is that the Havel family treated Elisabeth's illegitimate child, or the bastard (to be crass), in a charitable manner, much differently than what was the norm of the time for common peasants.

Elisabeth Havel Death Record, 14 May 1696
Trebon Archives, Catholic Parish Registers, Lhenice 1, img 138 

As noted, the norms were different based on class distinctions. The illegitimate son of the Austro-Hungarian Emperor (born to his mistress) was given control of Krumlov domain in the early seventeenth century, and squandered the opportunity such that the emperor sold it to the Schwarzenberg family. Benjamin Franklin, had an illegitimate son, William, who was colonial governor of New Jersey, and was a Tory during the Revolutionary War. William also sired an illegitimate son, Temple, who was Benjamin's secretary in France during the time when Benjamin was obtaining France as an ally and then the peace negotiations. Temple also had a daughter born out of wedlock. It is said, by persons with much more authority than I, that illegitimate children were more common than one would think back in that time. It was also said that illegitimate children also bore illegitimate children, which is clearly shown in the Franklin case. 

One wonders about the circumstances surrounding Elizabeth, and questions arise. For example, who was the father of the child? It was not unusual for a peasant girl or young woman to be posted to a house as a servant, and often a male in that household would be the one who impregnated the girl or young lady. Or, it could have been a farm helper on their own farm. The Havel family farm was small, being a "quarter" farm, so I wonder if they could afford much in the way of a farm hand. I tend to rule that explanation out. It could have been a soldier moving through town (although they often returned to the village to marry the woman, per one Czech professional genealogist). It could as well have been a married, or unmarried a man in the village.  A nonconsensual relationship, that is rape, can not be ruled out, but neither can a consensual relationship. 

Then there are the circumstances of the birth. Many illegitimate children were neglected by mother and family, failing to live beyond a few days. If the mother had wanted to care for the child, she was often sent back to work as if she had never had a child, meaning the care of the child was very limited.  Health care was pretty much non-existent and any care for an illegitimate child was even worse. The mother could have a permanent mark to her name, not unlike the letter A for adultery in Puritan America. There are many instances of an illegitimate child being baptized in Bohemia, as many researchers have noted.

As Elizabeth was preparing to give birth to Joseph, which likely occurred in or near 1693, what were the circumstances?  What assistance did her mother, also named Elisabeth, who would pass away in 1703, provide? Was a midwife used? Were her older sisters supportive? I hope she was not alone. Elizabeth was probably at or near 25 years of age when her son was born. In this case, lacking a record of her birth, I am using a birth year of 1668, as she was recorded as being age two in the 1670 Seignorial Register. Unfortunately we know little of any mental or physical condition, or capabilities. Given the primitive medical conditions, and lack of what we understand today as proper sanitation, it was not unusual for many of our ancestors to have some type of underlying morbidity, even at a young age. For example, she had a brother who was visually impaired and disabled, thus we cannot discount a mental or physical disability. I have a death record for an Elisabeth Havel, daughter of Georgius Havel, having died on 14 May 1696 at the age of 27. While death records are notorious for the wrong age, her age of death places her within a year of the possible birth age identified in the Seignorial Register. How many "Elisabeth Havels daughter of Georgius" could there be in that small village?

Land Register Notation on Elisabeth Havel and
her Son Josef, highlighted is added note on his marriage year.
Land Register, Cesky Krumlov, Ordinal 139, img 69

The Seignorial Registers I have had transcribed for my immediate family lose Joseph and Elizabeth for some years. The first Seignorial record of which I am aware that identifies him is in 1712. From 1712 to 1716 Joseph is identified as  being with Simon Havel in the village, or on the farm, meaning home farm. Simon took over the farm from his father in 1712. Simon is identified as Joseph's cousin, but other Seignorial Records are clear that Joseph is the son of Elisabeth, who is Simon's sister. For a period of three years--1717 through 1719--Joseph is in service to the Plawnitz Meirerhoff, probably a large farm where he is a farm hand. After his three years of service, Joseph goes back to the village and is listed as listed as being with the Havels. In 1722 the Seignorial register note is more lengthy as he is identified as age 28 and is "In the village with the Havels. Has purchased in Ratiborova Lhota in 1722."  The land register has a note, by his name that he was married in 1722. In 1722, it appears, from the land register for folio 1, that he married Ursula Marko or Marek, the widow of Vit Marko (Marek) at a smallholding, which is associated with folio 1 in Ratiborova Lhota.

Joseph's marriage record to Ursula is interesting. Joseph's father is listed as Galli Petr, but the land register records give him the surname Hawle (Havel). Galli, is a version of the name Gall, and which in Bohemia the Havel surname is derived from Gall (think St Gall). The land registers are quite clear that Joseph was born out of wedlock, and in those registers the last name Hawle is used. Was Galli Petr his father, was it a mistake, or was it a clever play on words for the surname Havel by the priest? I like to think it was the latter as to be gracious to his illegitimate birth. Of course that is all pure speculation.

Veit Marek son of Jakub marriage to Ursula, widow of
Matheus Pobera, 29 April 1717. Simon Havel is a witness.
Parish Register Lhenice 1, img 112

Yet, there is more in regard to Joseph's surname. There is a death record for a Joseph in Lhota on 10 May 1729, but the surname is Pobera. Thanks to assistance from Richard D'Amelio, I have a high degree of certainty that this is Elisabeth's son Joseph. Odd things arise, such as payments were made under his name on 30 March 1730. Yet, what Richard found is confusing and complicated, but logical. First, Joseph's wife Ursula was the widow of Veit Marko/Marek who she married in 1717. Veit was Ursula's (at least) second husband, as her prior husband, Matheus Pobera (Wopalka is the surname in the land register) had died which led to her marriage to Veit Marko. As pointed out, when Veit died Joseph married Ursula, although he was identified as Joseph, son of Galli Petr in the marriage record, making him Joseph Petr. The Seignorial Register may be able to provide clarification, but the pages relating to folio 1 (this property) and 2 are missing from the 1702-1756 register. Although, as Richard says, who knows we may have yet found a different surname. The use of the Probera surname likely is what is referred to as an "after the roof" surname, which you can read about here. Essentially, people knew it as the Pobera house, and that surname became attached to Joseph. It does not appear that Marko used the Pobera surname, given other records, and the fact that Ursula is listed in her marriage record to Joseph as the widow of Veit Marko. I have been unable to find a marriage entry for Ursula to Matheus Probera. No one ever said that genealogical research was easy. 

Joseph Havel marriage record to Ursula
widow of Vitum Mark_
 Parish Register, Lhenice 1 Img 122

The land register, ordinal 139 (1707-1882), has a note in regards to Joseph's status. The sidebar notation reads: "In place of Elisabeth, her son Joseph 26 years old who was born out of wedlock, because the siblings have willingly allowed him to inherit--21ſß 40g 3½₰. Enacted on the 27th of March 1719." A second note, added to the first, indicates "married in 1722". Overall, the receipt of a share of the inheritance is a very unusual situation. First, unless released by the domain, the Todenfall rules for the Krumlov domain would not allow an illegitimate child to have claim to an inheritance. There is no mention in the record of Elisabeth being granted release from the domain, and as Joseph purchased a farm in Ratiborova Lhota he was subject to the domain so it is not likely that he was released since he stayed in the village. A professional genealogist on her blog "Czech Genealogy for Beginners" makes this statement: "Having an illegitimate child was a kind of mark. Woman which had such child had to count with different kinds of oppression from the society. First of all, her own family usually cut her off. She wasn't allowed to inherit any kind of property, it was often directly written in the cadastral books that she is excluded from inheritance because of illegitimate child."

Orphan of the late Elisabeth Havel, Joseph 18 years in the village with 
his cousin Simon Havel (Simon was his uncle)
Cesky Krumlov Seigniorial Register, Ord, 231,  Img 362

Yet, here we see the family having agreed to Joseph receiving his mother's share of the estate. I am taking it that the siblings were Elisabeth's brothers and sisters, not siblings of Joseph. In addition, unless there was a release, the domain would have had to also agree to Joseph receiving the share, as the domain, in the Krumlov domain, would otherwise have received Elisabeth's share. It was not the family that lost money, but the domain. Yet, the Havel family must have championed his cause, and given that he lived with Simon, I wonder if Simon was the primary champion for his cause of obtaining his mother's share of the inheritance? If one is released from the domain, they are also released from the Todenfall restrictions of that domain, and here perhaps the heirs of a released person could have had a claim to her share of the estate since an illegitimate child (as Todenfall does not apply to released persons). Joseph started receiving his share of the estate, in 1723. Please remember that Simon was only required to pay 4ſß per year, so some years some heirs received a payment but others in a following year. A prior post detailed that Simon paid his sister Ludmilla to purchase harness tack, and other than that year and the payment in 1719 for his father's funeral expenses, and the final payment in 1736 all payments were at 4ſß per year. 

Death record of Joseph Pobera, likely Joseph Havel, son of Elizabeth
 Parish Register Lhenice 2, Img 285

If Elisabeth or Joseph had not been released from the domain rules, why did the domain give up payments and allow Joseph to receive an inheritance? My theory is that they saw that Joseph could be a productive member of the community by farming in Ratiborova Lhota, even if it was a small holding, which would be better than any small plot of farmland lying fallow until a new owner is found. He married the widow of the prior owner, providing continuity of ownership. A widow could otherwise have been thrown off the farm. Joseph being a productive community member was likely in part due to the gracious manner he was treated by Simon and his siblings, and his cousins. The domain may have weighed the payment they were giving up, with the additional robota labor they were acquiring in a young man. I doubt the domain did it out of the graciousness of their heart, and it was most likely an economic decision.

Birth of Eva Probera to Joseph and Ursula
Parish Register, Lhenice 1 img 87
Eva died on 29 March 1729, several weeks before her father 

Whatever the exact situation was with Joseph and his variety of surnames, I think this was a very magnanimous of the Havel family to assist a child born out of wedlock in a time and age when illegitimate children of peasants were generally disowned. Joseph Havel, the bastard son of Elisabeth Havel, was born about seventy years before the birth of William Franklin. We find that the poorer, illiterate Havel family did something for Joseph that Benjamin Franklin (died 1790) did not do for his only son--provide him an inheritance. 

Sources:

http://czechgenealogy.nase-koreny.cz/2013/04/illegitimate-children.html

Trebon Archives