Curious Joe 89: What were some Things illegitimate Children were Not Entitled to, during the Renaissance Period?
I know they were pretty much seen and treated just the same as other child who was legitimate. But I was curious what were some things they were not entitled to, because of their status of being bastards lol. I’m quite curious how illegitimate Children in Italy were treated/not entitled to?
Answers and Views:
Answer by Anne
same as much of europe, they could not inherit titles or land that came from their parents unless they were legitimized
Actually, you are a bit incorrect in your assumptions.
Illegitimate children were NOT entitled to ANYTHING whatsoever.
Illegitimate children could live and die in abject poverty, and billions did just that, completely ignored and totally forgotten.
Unless the father officially acknowledged their birthright, they were no body.
If the child was the result of an illicit tryst between the “master” and a maid in the household, many times forced, the child simply grew up as just another servant within the household.
If the father was a peasant, the child was usually ignored, another mouth to feed was never a good thing.
If the father was an artisan or tradesman AND a decent man, AND everyone knew the kid was his, he might take the boy in as an apprentice.
Any entitlement like property or money would go to the man’s legitimate child or the bastard child might receive something in a will.
Likewise with a “gentleman farmer”.
This does NOT mean by any means that they acknowledged them as their child.
If the father was of the aristocracy and the mother was not, but in his household, the child was simply raised as a fatherless servant if the mother was not sent away — many times she was.
No entitlement whatsoever.
There have been stipulation in a will that this particular child could remain in the employ of the household for as long as they pleased without any reason given.
If both the parents were members of the aristocracy AND on equal social standing, some sort of family arrangement would be made — contractual marriage, the relocation of one of the guilty parties to another area with other relatives, financial restitution, adoption, or any number of other things.
Depending on the family agreement, the child might or might not be claimed by the real father.
The family may decide for another relative to claim parentage.
Any entitlement will be part of the arrangement, though not necessary.
Finally …… if the mother is a member of the aristocracy and is involved in a tryst that produces a child with a male of a HIGHER standing in the aristocracy —- the matter is TOTALLY in the hands of the father.
This guy makes his own standards and may be high enough in the social order that he is simply beyond reproach of any kind.
The illegitimate children of Napoleon Bonaparte would be an excellent example here.
Napoleon had only ONE legitimate child, Napoleon II.
He had at least FIVE illegitimate children, possibly a lot more.
Napoleon only ACKNOWLEDGED two of them ….
One was the product of an affair Napoleon had with the wife of one of his captains.
On down the road this woman ended up marrying a Count, making his adoptive son a Count.
Napoleon did not acknowledge this child until he was quite grown and now a member of the aristocracy under his own right.
Until the Count came along this boy was considered nothing more than the orphaned son of a dead army officer whose mother seemed to have quite a bit of money.
Even acknowledged, he lived his entire life with no entitlements whatsoever from Napoleon.
The second child was a product of a tryst Napoleon had with a married Polish Countess, though Napoleon acknowledged the boy, the boy refused to acknowledge Napoleon, insisted his entire life to be the son of the Count, became a Count under his own right.
Though he was treated as a young Count in his own country and household.
Even acknowledged, he lived his entire life with no entitlements whatsoever from Napoleon.
Illegitimate children were NOT seen and treated the same as a legitimate child at all.
Even if acknowledged most received no entitlements whatsoever.
Only the wealthiest and most decent of the fathers gave money to their mothers for support.
The church would NEVER acknowledge the child …. period.
Most of the mothers were treated as whores and the children as fatherless bastards.
Only a minor, minor few were even remembered in a will for a small monetary gift, possibly a small a piece of land, or possibly a promise that they may grow old in the household and not be kicked to the streets when they were too old to work anymore.
Italian, Spanish, French, English, German, Greek ….the European aristocracy are literally related to one another, they’re different lines of cousins.
This situation was treated identically, no matter if it were in Italy or England.
Oh, I forgot to mention ……this was only for boy children.
Female children were not considered important …. period.
***EDIT***
Hey Tim! U know I love arguing bro! LOL
It still goes to acknowledgement BY the father and it DID happen but it was NOT the norm – of all the millions of illegitimate children with aristocratic fathers this small handful of acknowledged sons was SO insubstancial it hardly bothers mentioning and was RARE during the Renaissance period, though it did happen more often BEFORE in the “darker ages” simply because marriages WERE arrangements then and there was strength in family numbers – I should have clarified that. In the Dark Ages illegitimate SONS were still “blood” and often made captains of their guards, minor Land-Lords in the purest sense, given their own land – but it was all for the strength of the family holdings. Many illegitimate sons did quite well back then but by the time of the Renaissance holdings and titles were MUCH more greedily protected.
As for church clergy – the Renaissance church was extremely corrupt – clegy could NOT marry and simply promoted their sons the only way they could, by placing them in high levels within the church – this happened all over Europe.
Look at the Borgias of Italy – a Pope no less – a dozen kids, all the boys placed in high church positions.
Illegitimacy need not be a barrier, especially amongst royalty. For example, Mathias King of Hungary was childless after two marriages, but he had a son born to a mistress (John Corvinus). When he recognised that he was going to die he travelled throughout his extensive kingdom, demanding and, nominally, receiving support from the noble families and the church including from the Vatican. As far as he was concerned John was the perfect candidate. Ultimately John did not become King of Hungary, he was King of Bosnia for a while, however the noble families chose to accept an offer of a Polish king in reaction to Mathias’ gross overspending.
In Italy, there are instances of influential clergymen’s children being elevated to high posts, including cardinal.
In England it was possible to inherit as a bastard, provided there were no other sons born within a legitimate marriage, the oldest son born out of wedlock could inherit (this did not apply to daughters). In Wales a bastard was an unacknowledged child (by its father), if a child was acknowledged, no matter the marital status of its parents, the child was able to take a share of any inheritance.
Leave a Reply