Wow, I plowed through your light reading (wink, wink). All I can say is wow. The child definitely paid for the sins of the parents. To be a complete non-entity. To be farmed out to a "guardian" (a very genteel way of saying "master") until you are 21 years of age. Even passage to this country was only 7 years service. And there really didn't seem to be any system in place to monitor the treatment these children received from their appointed guardians.
If I'm reading what I think I'm reading, it didn't matter if the parents married after the fact, they didn't get the child back, no matter the circumstances. And the child went through life not being allowed to use his surname? Am I reading that right? The child is stripped completely of his/her identity and birthright?
Comparatively, the fine the parents might have to pay, even with the few lashes they might have to endure, after that, they walk away. And they could take off and leave their responsibility to support the child completely behind if they so chose.
They discussed infanticide, and how difficult it was to prosecute so if an unwed parent decided to dispose of their little bundle, they might only spend a year in jail.
And the instances where the woman, pressured into giving the name of the father would, instead, name an innocent man to protect her paramour.
With this information, I don't even know how I would start to locate this child. No surname, no parents, no rights. Again, wow.
Just unbelievable. I'm glad I was born into that situation in the 1950s, not the 1750s.
Thanks so much for taking the time to find those for me.