If you remember, Magnus Hallman married Brita Charlotta Eriksdotter (or Hahl) in March 1825 and she gave birth to a daughter, Brita Christina, a little less than 4 months later.
As if it isn't hard enough to keep Brita Charlotta (mother) and Brita Christina or "Stina" (daughter) straight, there seems to be other things which are equally as complicated and confusing. Three things we need to know:
1. After the death of his parents, in almost all of the records in Magnus' home parish of Helgarö he was identified as a "Fosterson". But for 6 years following his first move from Helgarö, in the moving-in records, birth records, and marriage records in other parishes he was identified as a "Skomakare" or shoemaker.
2. In addition to birth, marriage, death, and household records, it was required for priests to keep track of people moving into (Inflyttning) and moving out of (Utflyttningslängder) the parish. Although these records were never kept with future genealogy in mind, this made the work of genealogist like me much, much easier. When a family or an individual in a parish moved, the priest would note in the household record when they left and where they were going. If there was any question as to what he wrote (or if he forgot entirely) it was easy to consult the Utflyttningslängder to get the needed information. The next step would be to find the Inflyttnings for the new parish. The family or individual was usually listed as moving in a short time after leaving the previous parish depending on the distance they had to travel. Often, if the priest was thorough, he would list on the Inflyttnings the exact farm/village the new residents would be moving into and/or the actual number of the page on which they would be listed in the household record. This made tracking them a very simple procedure. Without that information we would sometimes be required to search page after page in the parish household record until we came across them (which I have done more times than I can count). I noticed for certain locations there was often a long list of names on the Utflyttningslängder who moved on October 24th of each year. I recently found out why.
2. In addition to birth, marriage, death, and household records, it was required for priests to keep track of people moving into (Inflyttning) and moving out of (Utflyttningslängder) the parish. Although these records were never kept with future genealogy in mind, this made the work of genealogist like me much, much easier. When a family or an individual in a parish moved, the priest would note in the household record when they left and where they were going. If there was any question as to what he wrote (or if he forgot entirely) it was easy to consult the Utflyttningslängder to get the needed information. The next step would be to find the Inflyttnings for the new parish. The family or individual was usually listed as moving in a short time after leaving the previous parish depending on the distance they had to travel. Often, if the priest was thorough, he would list on the Inflyttnings the exact farm/village the new residents would be moving into and/or the actual number of the page on which they would be listed in the household record. This made tracking them a very simple procedure. Without that information we would sometimes be required to search page after page in the parish household record until we came across them (which I have done more times than I can count). I noticed for certain locations there was often a long list of names on the Utflyttningslängder who moved on October 24th of each year. I recently found out why.
3. Between 1664 and 1926 the relationship between freeholders (land-owning farmers) and hired farmhands (usually single men called "Drängor" and single women called "Pigor") was highly regulated. I'll discuss more about that in upcoming posts concerning my ancestors who were unmarried farmhands in more southern counties of Sweden. But one thing I'll discuss here is that the government regulations required workers to be under contract to the farmers for 12 months. That insured the farmer had steady, reliable help through his entire growing season. Throughout most of Sweden the contracts ended on October 24th of each year. If a farmhand wanted to move to a new area for whatever reason, they had one week following October 24th to report to their new employer.
 |
| Helgarö Utflyttningslängder 1827 |
3 March 1825 - Magnus and Brita Charlotta Hahl are married in Hammarby but live in Helgarö
24 October 1827 - Magnus and family move to Hammarby
24 October 1828 - Magnus and family move back to Helgarö
25 October 1830 - Magnus and family move to Fogdö
So if he was a married shoemaker and not a single farmhand, why was he always moving on October 24th? If I ever figure that out I'll update this post and let you know.
The moving thing is perplexing, but here is something else that begs even more questions than answers.
As previously stated, Brita Charlotta gave birth to a daughter, Brita Christina (aka Brita Stina) a little less than 4 months after she and Magnus were married. Brita Stina was recorded in the household record book along with her birth date. We don't know exactly when that got written down, but it is there. However, the local parish priest made no mention of her in his book of recorded births.
One purpose of the household record was to keep track of everyone who resided in the house whether they were directly related to the head of the household or not, but the birth record was to record the birth of a child and to specifically identify the mother and the father. This was not a largely populated parish nor was it a large geographical area, and prior to 1860 all Swedes were absolutely required to be regular attenders of their local parish. It's always a possibility, but I don't think the priest didn't know the birth had occurred. So was this just a mistake on his part or was the omission intentional?
From other Swedish church records I've seen, they usually didn't shy away from scandal. These books were never intended to be made public and the priests made any and all needed notes in the margins. If a child was born to an unwed mother who named the father, the father's name was listed somewhere on the page and the child was labeled illegitimate. Magnus and Brita, however, were married by the time the baby was born. Regardless of their marital status at the time of conception, Magnus should have been listed as the father if he were, in fact, the father. I've actually seen records of other members of the Hallman family involving situations even more scandalous. For example, Magnus' future grandson, Albert, would have an affair with a married woman, resulting in the birth of a son, Karl Albert. In the birth record the priest recorded the mother and her husband in the usual spot, but in the margin on the far side of the page he wrote (in Swedish on course), "The mother declared according to the baptismal certificate the father to be shoemaker's son Albert Hallman from Askestaby." (By the way, the woman ended up leaving her husband and marrying Albert. Until that happened, Karl Albert was identified in all the household records as an illegitimate son fathered by Albert Hallman.) I think if Brita Charlotta had had a consensual relationship with another man which resulted in pregnancy, that man's name would be recorded by the priest as the father of the baby.
From other Swedish church records I've seen, they usually didn't shy away from scandal. These books were never intended to be made public and the priests made any and all needed notes in the margins. If a child was born to an unwed mother who named the father, the father's name was listed somewhere on the page and the child was labeled illegitimate. Magnus and Brita, however, were married by the time the baby was born. Regardless of their marital status at the time of conception, Magnus should have been listed as the father if he were, in fact, the father. I've actually seen records of other members of the Hallman family involving situations even more scandalous. For example, Magnus' future grandson, Albert, would have an affair with a married woman, resulting in the birth of a son, Karl Albert. In the birth record the priest recorded the mother and her husband in the usual spot, but in the margin on the far side of the page he wrote (in Swedish on course), "The mother declared according to the baptismal certificate the father to be shoemaker's son Albert Hallman from Askestaby." (By the way, the woman ended up leaving her husband and marrying Albert. Until that happened, Karl Albert was identified in all the household records as an illegitimate son fathered by Albert Hallman.) I think if Brita Charlotta had had a consensual relationship with another man which resulted in pregnancy, that man's name would be recorded by the priest as the father of the baby.
Here's where it gets even more complicated. When Brita Stina was 2 yrs-old, Brita Charlotta gave birth to a son, Karl Erik Magnus (my 2nd g-grandfather) in September 1827. Less than four months later, after moving back to Hammarby with the Hahls, Brita Charlotta died. Magnus and the two children remained in Hammarby with the in-laws until 24 October of the next year, at which time Magnus and his son, Karl Erik Magnus, moved back to Helgarö with the foster parents, leaving 3 1/2 yr-old Brita Stina with the maternal grandparents.
Brita Stina stayed with her mother's parents from then on. She never again lived with Magnus. Of course, a single father would be hard pressed to take care of two children on his own, but he was moving back in with his foster parents from whom it appeared he had received support since he was 8 yrs-old.
And here's something else. In all the household records up until 1847 Brita Stina was identified as the Hahl's "dotter dotter" or granddaughter, but there was never a last name listed. Priests didn't list last names of children living with their parents, but the last name of a granddaughter which differed from that of her grandparents should have been spelled out.
And here's something else. In all the household records up until 1847 Brita Stina was identified as the Hahl's "dotter dotter" or granddaughter, but there was never a last name listed. Priests didn't list last names of children living with their parents, but the last name of a granddaughter which differed from that of her grandparents should have been spelled out.
It wasn't until she was 22 yrs-old and left Hammarby to work in another parish that she was finally identified as "Brita Stina Hallman".
So what does all this mean? Maybe nothing. (Probably nothing - assumptions are usually wrong.) But I think there's a strong possibility Brita Stina was not Magnus Hallman's biological daughter. And the truth may have been clouded in secrecy. Let's review the facts:
1. Brita Stina was born 4 months after her mother, Brita Charlotta, married Magnus
2. There was no birth/christening record made by the local priest so the name of Brita Stina's biological father was never recorded
3. When Brita Charlotta died, Brita Stina stayed with her maternal grandparents
4. Brita Stina was not identified by any last name until she left her grandparents' home and needed autonomy
Of course, if Magnus was Brita Stina's father all the other pieces of information were just coincidental. But if Magnus wasn't Brita Stina's father, who was? And why was he never identified? Did Brita Charlotta refuse to identify the father? Did Brita Charlotta become pregnant by someone she couldn't identify? Or was Brita Charlotta's daughter fathered by someone who could not be identified or risk losing his status and reputation within the community? And the question we also have to ask if those last two questions seem plausible: Was Brita Charlotta raped?
Let's just sit with that for a few moments, especially if you are one of Brita Charlotta's direct descendants.
Again, let me emphasize the fact that this is all speculation based on the documentary evidence. Unless a direct descendant of Brita Stina's decides to compare her DNA to that of another Hallman descendant who doesn't share Brita Charlotta's ancestry we'll never know for sure.
I'll be honest. I'm having a really hard time not speculating about Brita Charlotta's experience. In the eyes of the church at the time, an unwed pregnant woman was not "pure" and could not take part in normal religious activity. It was mandated that she confess her sins, sometimes in front of the entire congregation, in order to receive forgiveness. It wouldn't be until 1855, if the woman could prove the paternity of her child and file legal charges against him, that the man could be fined in a court of law. Prior to that time only the woman was accused and publicly shamed. And why would that be? For obvious reasons a woman couldn't deny an unwed pregnancy but a man could easily deny being responsible for it. Also, it was universally believed that men were biologically predisposed to needing sex. They couldn't help themselves. It was beyond their ability to control. Women, however, were the gatekeepers of chastity, morality, and virtue. Any woman who succumbed to the beguiling of a man was a woman in need of repentance and correction. There was generally never any determination made as to whether or not the encounter was consensual. A woman who was raped was treated no differently than a woman who "asked for it." It's no wonder we still hear things like, "She went and got herself pregnant."
As if that wasn't discriminatory enough, all women who had just given birth were thought of as ritually impure and were not allowed to attend church for six weeks following the birth of a child. Since the christening of the baby happened within 8 days of birth, the mother could not attend her own baby's baptism. It would be witnessed by other family members and/or the godparents. When a woman's period of confinement was approaching its end, her husband was required to deliver a notice to the priest. The absolution rite, in which a woman was required to kneel on an absolution stool and receive cleansing rites from the priest, would usually happen before regular church services. (No stool was provided to unwed mothers - they would be required to kneel on the hard, stone floor.) Prior to 1870 women had to pay to have these rites performed. (More here.)
So what does this say about 21 yr-old Magnus? What we're going to find out is that he'll marry two more times. And both women he married were pregnant on their wedding day. Magnus was recorded as being the father both times. If he were also the father of Brita Stina, he would have possibly subjected three women, repeat three women, to religious restrictions and public shaming.
Misogyny and male entitlement, fully supported and perpetuated by a very patriarchal religious system, was alive and very unwell in nineteenth century Sweden.
Brita Charlotta, my 3rd great-grandmother, was only 23 yrs-old when she died.
Comments
Post a Comment