Gavin and George An extract from the Bothkennar re the sale of the lairs: ** I William Paterson freely sets and disponds to John Walker in the Parish of Bothkenr my Rights and Property of two headstones with the burying Places belonging to the said Stones in Bothkennar Churchyard, which I here sind over. Bothkenr 13th Nov 1761 John Walker Sailor [xx] hath taken out the two old headstones and put in new ones, to his Lairs which he hath in the Churchyard of Bothkenr. .... ** Gavin, I believe that the Society has the MI's for Bothkennar - I feel I may just have to purchase a copy. Sharon

I note and understand what you and George have said. I thought perhaps there was a significance in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1929 being the authority to administer local issues over Parish Councils. It seems it was the first Local Government legislation enabled, following the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894, which was an Act to establish a Local Government Board for Scotland, and make further provision for Local Government in Scotland, and for other purposes. It is understandable that the Kirk Sessions would continue to guide those who observe religion who may step out of line from time to time; it is now their choice. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Johnson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 3:26 PM Subject: [ABERDEEN] Kirk Sessions > On 08/08/2013 08:00, Janet wrote: >> In 1929 the Kirk Sessions were abolished. > This is incorrect, for the Church of Scotland kirks continue to have > their Kirk Sessions today. > The wording may have been ill-advised. I think what it intended to say > was that the > legal power and responsibility of kirk sessions was abolished. > Regards, > Gordon:-* > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Jenny, Again this is slightly off topic but I am interested in your reply. I am currently researching a family that lived in Glasgow but returned to Ireland around 1841. From information I have on hand I know they attended the Episcopalian church of St Andrews by the Green. I am wondering how you accessed this information. Regards, Christine -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jenny Myers Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013 9:26 a.m. To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] an out of area question - however someone might justknow the answer! Sharon wrote.... 1) There are pages of entries for parishioners getting "testimonials" from the church. Some say "got" some say "bought". I am just wondering the reason for these testimonials. ---- I have been researching my friends family here in Australia, and in 1837 we find her 3x Gr Grandmother reputedly born Glasgow 1821 having a Testimonial from the Episcopalian Parish of St Andrew Glasgow giving testament to her character to join the recruitment by the Rev. John Dunmore Lang (the first Presbyterian Minister and at times a controversial gentleman) to encourage young ladies with morality and education to emigrate to the Colony. Janet's Testasmonial also stated she could both read and write Dunmore Lang was also responsible for a similar program to Canada. Regards Jenny

Sharon wrote.... 1) There are pages of entries for parishioners getting "testimonials" from the church. Some say "got" some say "bought". I am just wondering the reason for these testimonials. ---- I have been researching my friends family here in Australia, and in 1837 we find her 3x Gr Grandmother reputedly born Glasgow 1821 having a Testimonial from the Episcopalian Parish of St Andrew Glasgow giving testament to her character to join the recruitment by the Rev. John Dunmore Lang (the first Presbyterian Minister and at times a controversial gentleman) to encourage young ladies with morality and education to emigrate to the Colony. Janet's Testasmonial also stated she could both read and write Dunmore Lang was also responsible for a similar program to Canada. Regards Jenny

I have just had a look at a " Certificate of Right to Burial" originally belonging to my wife's grandfather. In it he is called the grantee and this gives him and his Heirs,or Assignees the right of burial in that particular lair. It goes on " The Grantee or his foresaids shall not be entitled without consent in writing, to sell or to convey except by Testamentary Deed, the foresaid right of burial, or to permit any interment in the said piece of ground, for a pecuniary consideration" This lair was purchased in 1914 for an infant and was then transferred to his widow on his death in 1947 and a modification to the certificate issued. She was interred in 1981. The total cost of the lair in 1914 was 4 pounds 4 shillings plus 2 pounds 5 shilling in redemption of the annual charge of 3 shillings for the upkeep of the ground in perpetuity. A canny bit of business by a canny Aberdeenshire farmer! regards George George Brander Torre de la Horadada España On 8 August 2013 18:10, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/08/2013 4:14 AM, George Brander wrote: > > Sharon > > It is not uncommon for the ownership of lairs to be transferred to a > > surviving member of the family when the original purchaser of the lair > dies. > > In the burial book of Old Keith cemetery which lists the ownership of all > > the lairs there is frequent mention of the "transfer" of the lair to > > another person and frquently of a different family. What kind of > > transaction took place and whether there was payment involved is not > clear > > and I would only be speculating! In many cases it would appear that the > > original purchaser of the lair did not have family and some of the lairs > > are substantial. > > > I have only anecdotal information for this, in a > 1960s letter from a relative who had visited my > paternal grandfather's ancestral part of > Stirlingshire, but she said she'd found a "change > of occupants" in the cemetery there. Our ancestors > were from the wife's first marriage. All seven of > her children of that marriage emigrated to North > America between 1790-1805. Her first husband (my > 4xgt-grandfather) died and the widow, in late > middle age, remarried to a widower with another > large family. Since the rest of the lair was not > going to be used by her own children now living > (and eventually dying) in the New World, her > second husband's family took over the space for > their own descendants. I don't know if there was > any formal transaction involved, or if they just > gradually moved in. > > Margaret Gibbs > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I think what happened in 1929 was that any lingering and tenuous link between the the administration of the Poor Law and the Kirk Session through the involvement of members in such bodies as the Parochial Board was formally severed. It has also to be said that the Kirk Session's function as a "morality" court which has been discussed at length in other postings had more or less ceased by the late 1870s. The function of the Kirk Session (in the Church of Scotland) which comprises elders of the kirk is defined as follows- The Kirk Session has oversight of the whole life and service of the Church within its Parish; responsibility for the spiritual and temporal oversight of the Congregation’s affairs. Its spiritual responsibility involves “leadership, nurturing the spirituality of the congregation and its members, caring for the spiritual welfare of the parish and parishioners, encouraging members to participate in the worship and life of the congregation, and promoting mission and evangelism in the parish.” And as Gordon rightly points out the Kirk Session operates today within the Church of Scotland and in its Presbyterian sister churches although some like my own church the "Iglesia Evangélica Española "(The Spanish Evangelical Church ) call it a Council of Elders. regards George George Brander Torre de la Horadada España On 8 August 2013 16:26, Gordon Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/08/2013 08:00, Janet wrote: > > In 1929 the Kirk Sessions were abolished. > This is incorrect, for the Church of Scotland kirks continue to have > their Kirk Sessions today. > The wording may have been ill-advised. I think what it intended to say > was that the > legal power and responsibility of kirk sessions was abolished. > Regards, > Gordon:-* > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On 08/08/2013 08:00, Janet wrote: > In 1929 the Kirk Sessions were abolished. This is incorrect, for the Church of Scotland kirks continue to have their Kirk Sessions today. The wording may have been ill-advised. I think what it intended to say was that the legal power and responsibility of kirk sessions was abolished. Regards, Gordon:-*

What a treasure trove here on Keith. I have been there twice, and found many of my Innes and McGregor families, walked the hills and drove to some of the old homes. But this is something else again!! Thank you so much for the website!! I have copied many of the pages, but now thanks to you folks I have it all in ONE place. Thanks so much, Goldie -----Original Message----- From: George Brander Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:59 AM To: Aberdeen Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] an out of area question - however someone might just know the answer! I have just had a look at a " Certificate of Right to Burial" originally belonging to my wife's grandfather. In it he is called the grantee and this gives him and his Heirs,or Assignees the right of burial in that particular lair. It goes on " The Grantee or his foresaids shall not be entitled without consent in writing, to sell or to convey except by Testamentary Deed, the foresaid right of burial, or to permit any interment in the said piece of ground, for a pecuniary consideration" This lair was purchased in 1914 for an infant and was then transferred to his widow on his death in 1947 and a modification to the certificate issued. She was interred in 1981. The total cost of the lair in 1914 was 4 pounds 4 shillings plus 2 pounds 5 shilling in redemption of the annual charge of 3 shillings for the upkeep of the ground in perpetuity. A canny bit of business by a canny Aberdeenshire farmer! regards George George Brander Torre de la Horadada España On 8 August 2013 18:10, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/08/2013 4:14 AM, George Brander wrote: > > Sharon > > It is not uncommon for the ownership of lairs to be transferred to a > > surviving member of the family when the original purchaser of the lair > dies. > > In the burial book of Old Keith cemetery which lists the ownership of > > all > > the lairs there is frequent mention of the "transfer" of the lair to > > another person and frquently of a different family. What kind of > > transaction took place and whether there was payment involved is not > clear > > and I would only be speculating! In many cases it would appear that the > > original purchaser of the lair did not have family and some of the lairs > > are substantial. > > > I have only anecdotal information for this, in a > 1960s letter from a relative who had visited my > paternal grandfather's ancestral part of > Stirlingshire, but she said she'd found a "change > of occupants" in the cemetery there. Our ancestors > were from the wife's first marriage. All seven of > her children of that marriage emigrated to North > America between 1790-1805. Her first husband (my > 4xgt-grandfather) died and the widow, in late > middle age, remarried to a widower with another > large family. Since the rest of the lair was not > going to be used by her own children now living > (and eventually dying) in the New World, her > second husband's family took over the space for > their own descendants. I don't know if there was > any formal transaction involved, or if they just > gradually moved in. > > Margaret Gibbs > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sharon It is not uncommon for the ownership of lairs to be transferred to a surviving member of the family when the original purchaser of the lair dies. In the burial book of Old Keith cemetery which lists the ownership of all the lairs there is frequent mention of the "transfer" of the lair to another person and frquently of a different family. What kind of transaction took place and whether there was payment involved is not clear and I would only be speculating! In many cases it would appear that the original purchaser of the lair did not have family and some of the lairs are substantial. Have a look at http://keith-heritage.webplus.net/1829%20Book.pdf and you will see what I mean. For anyone with ancestors from Keith this website is a treasure trove George George Brander Torre de la Horadada España On 8 August 2013 11:11, Gavin Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/08/2013 00:16, Sharon wrote: > > Hi folks > > > > I have been doing some research on a friend's family in Stirling - in > > particular Bothkennar and Larbert. > > > > The other day I was looking at Bothkennar OPRs and found entries I have > > never seen before. > > > > 1) There are pages of entries for parishioners getting "testimonials" > from > > the church. Some say "got" some say "bought". I am just wondering the > > reason for these testimonials. > > I imagine the people concerned were intending to move to a different > parish. If so, a favourable "testimonial" would get them off on the > right foot with the Minister and Session in that parish. > > > > > 2) The second thing I found very confusing. There are also pages of > lair > > transactions. I totally understand the purchase of lair/s, but there are > > also folk selling their lairs (with headstones) to others. Does anyone > know > > about this practice? > > I've never heard of this. I have occasionally seen a gravestone where > the initial inscription is followed (usually after a gap of years) by > additional names which appear to have no connection with the earlier > ones. I had always supposed this indicated a process of "unofficial > colonisation" but it sounds as if, in some places, there was a regular > trade in surplus lairs. > > Are there recorded Memorial Inscriptions for Bothkennar? And if so, is > it possible to link any of the inscriptions to the lair transactions? > > > Gavin Bell > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On 08/08/2013 00:16, Sharon wrote: > Hi folks > > I have been doing some research on a friend's family in Stirling - in > particular Bothkennar and Larbert. > > The other day I was looking at Bothkennar OPRs and found entries I have > never seen before. > > 1) There are pages of entries for parishioners getting "testimonials" from > the church. Some say "got" some say "bought". I am just wondering the > reason for these testimonials. I imagine the people concerned were intending to move to a different parish. If so, a favourable "testimonial" would get them off on the right foot with the Minister and Session in that parish. > > 2) The second thing I found very confusing. There are also pages of lair > transactions. I totally understand the purchase of lair/s, but there are > also folk selling their lairs (with headstones) to others. Does anyone know > about this practice? I've never heard of this. I have occasionally seen a gravestone where the initial inscription is followed (usually after a gap of years) by additional names which appear to have no connection with the earlier ones. I had always supposed this indicated a process of "unofficial colonisation" but it sounds as if, in some places, there was a regular trade in surplus lairs. Are there recorded Memorial Inscriptions for Bothkennar? And if so, is it possible to link any of the inscriptions to the lair transactions? Gavin Bell

Hi folks I have been doing some research on a friend's family in Stirling - in particular Bothkennar and Larbert. The other day I was looking at Bothkennar OPRs and found entries I have never seen before. 1) There are pages of entries for parishioners getting "testimonials" from the church. Some say "got" some say "bought". I am just wondering the reason for these testimonials. 2) The second thing I found very confusing. There are also pages of lair transactions. I totally understand the purchase of lair/s, but there are also folk selling their lairs (with headstones) to others. Does anyone know about this practice? I have a couple o photos of the pages if anyone is interested in looking at them. Sharon

On 08/08/2013 4:14 AM, George Brander wrote: > Sharon > It is not uncommon for the ownership of lairs to be transferred to a > surviving member of the family when the original purchaser of the lair dies. > In the burial book of Old Keith cemetery which lists the ownership of all > the lairs there is frequent mention of the "transfer" of the lair to > another person and frquently of a different family. What kind of > transaction took place and whether there was payment involved is not clear > and I would only be speculating! In many cases it would appear that the > original purchaser of the lair did not have family and some of the lairs > are substantial. I have only anecdotal information for this, in a 1960s letter from a relative who had visited my paternal grandfather's ancestral part of Stirlingshire, but she said she'd found a "change of occupants" in the cemetery there. Our ancestors were from the wife's first marriage. All seven of her children of that marriage emigrated to North America between 1790-1805. Her first husband (my 4xgt-grandfather) died and the widow, in late middle age, remarried to a widower with another large family. Since the rest of the lair was not going to be used by her own children now living (and eventually dying) in the New World, her second husband's family took over the space for their own descendants. I don't know if there was any formal transaction involved, or if they just gradually moved in. Margaret Gibbs

Relating to Rathven I have found this page which might be useful to you Goldie and others hopefully http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/sheena_charles/sessmins.htm There is other information and links on that site. I cant vouch for the site and as usual the precaution about information presented on the internet other than official sources. To explain the position of the Kirk, I have found further background information http://www.genguide.co.uk/source/KirkChurch-Sessions-Scotland/116/ Quote: It might be possible to find the mention of an event such as a baptism, marriage proclamation or burial amongst the records. For example, an irregular or clandestine marriage that does not appear in the official Old Parish Register might be recorded in the Kirk minutes. The minutes might record information regarding a couples proclamation with additional details about the 'cautioners' who were usually male relatives who acted as sponsors for the marriage paying a security to ensure the forthcoming marriage met the correct conditions. The minutes might also note details of the hire of the mortcloth which was used to cover the coffin prior to burial and might be the only reference to a person's death. - See more at: http://www.genguide.co.uk/source/KirkChurch-Sessions-Scotland/116/#sthash.ogN3uguw.dpuf The Scottish Reformation saw the introduction of a new system to run church affairs: the General Assembly, synods, presbyteries, and Kirk sessions. Presbyterians who later broke away from the Kirk also adopted a church court system. The Kirk Session Minute I posted yesterday referred to a fine having to be paid and as I understand, that fine would have been contributed to the relief of the poor in the Parish although there was a greater emphasis on fund raising from other sources in Scotland than there was in England & Wales to support the poor rather than move them on from whence they came. If any one knows and understands the origin of our Benefits system, the Poor Law was the earliest form of it in the Poor Law Act of 1834 in England & Wales. There was a Scottish Poor Law Act, information about which I have found here http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Scotland/ One can read the full text of the Act from a link on this page though it will be somewhat "heavy" I suspect. In 1845 parochial boards took over responsibility for the poor rate ending the Kirk Session's influence on local matters, and elected parish councils were introduced in 1894. In 1929 the Kirk Sessions were abolished. http://www.nas.gov.uk/about/101101.asp A new service that was rolled out from November 2010 opens up access to digital images of millions of pages of Church Court Records launched by the National Records of Scotland: I have an idea Gavin has posted about this earlier. Janet

I have since found this site which might create a basis for understanding http://www.thereformation.info/covenanters2.htm the position of the Church and the law. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janet" <[email protected]> > Goldie, I wrote the other day about if one needed a divorce at some point > in time one had to apply to the Church first for it and an Act of > Parliament would be issued, or not if the Church did not agree. In those > days the woman had to produce all the evidence in support. > It does help us if we can take a step back in time I think. I can only > explain that the Church was the law, before the Matrimonial Causes Acts of > about 1857. This may not necessarily apply in Scotland but the Kirk > Sessions did take place after Sermon which confirms the position of the > Kirk. > I will see what more I can find, but I think someone else will be able to > explain the position from their own knowledge better than I from my > knowledge of the history of law. > > Janet >

Goldie, I wrote the other day about if one needed a divorce at some point in time one had to apply to the Church first for it and an Act of Parliament would be issued, or not if the Church did not agree. In those days the woman had to produce all the evidence in support. It does help us if we can take a step back in time I think. I can only explain that the Church was the law, before the Matrimonial Causes Acts of about 1857. This may not necessarily apply in Scotland but the Kirk Sessions did take place after Sermon which confirms the position of the Kirk. I will see what more I can find, but I think someone else will be able to explain the position from their own knowledge better than I from my knowledge of the history of law. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Goldie & Lido Doratti" <[email protected]> To: "ALISON BROOKS" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Kirk Session Records > THIS thread I am going to be watching carefully. Thanks, Alison for your > input. IF I could possibly break thru my brick wall, I might be able to > take my INNES family further back...But, I'm happy with 1740, with the > except of the Kirk Session Minutes. I can't help, and have said this > before, saying that 'those among us without sin should cast the first > rock', > and in my very humble opinion that's what the Kirk Session in Gartly > did...threw rocks. They were the judge and the jury which I have a hard > time swallowing; were they also not human, and did the babe deserved to be > held responsible for ITS own appearance or not included in 'human'? > Now, I have to give you this...They married about 3 weeks before the babe > was born, and lady in question delivered about May 20, 1740 after a lengthy > session of being summoned to appear. One excuse after the other, and > sometimes Old John didn't show up either, so I can understand the > frustration the Session Members would have had. Sorry, but in my view they > were miserable men....There are other cases of which I took copies of when > in Edinburgh; same parish. However I got so excited about finding the info > on Old John Innes, I should have printed off more pages of the Minutes and > maybe been able to satisfy myself with when he died. Oh, oh, why is > hindsight always so 20/20? Lesson here for anyone going to search in > Edinburgh...take a 'grocery list', copy all you can and then digest it. > It's amazing what you learn, some of it between the lines....Goldie > > -----Original Message----- > From: ALISON BROOKS > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:37 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ABERDEEN] Kirk Session Records > > Yes, agree Goldie. This discussion on illigitimency has been > informative.Kirk Session records have helped me. > > I have been fortunate to be able to verify a 'reputed father' ? > . > On the St. Nicholas death cert. of my g..g.granfather, James McIntosh, > Illegitimate, 21 Feb 1872, age 49., reputed father was given as James > McIntosh mother May Burgess. > >>From his age at death and that on the 1851,61,and 71 census I looked for a >>baptism in the Cromdale PRs for 1823 but was unable to find anything. When >>Scotlandspeople came online I found a baptism for him in 1830 > McIntosh James son of James McIntosh Merchant in Grantown > in fornication > Burgess with Marjorie Burgess in Grantown was born 10 May 1823 and > baptised > 25 july > 1830 > > After mention on the list about Kirk Session records I got in touch with > the > Highland Archive Centre who said they had Kirk Session records for Cromdale > for that time period. > I paid for a search,( which was not too expensive) and this is what they > found, > > 4 July 1830, James McIntosh Merchant in Grantown appeared before the > session > requesting absolution from church scandal in order to entitle him to church > privileges. This was granted on payment of the usual fee and the account > ledger shows that 16 shillings was paid that day.. > James McIntosh merchant in Grantown fornication. > No mention of May Burgess. > I thought that he had done this to enable his son to be baptised but then I > found an entry in the Cromdale PRs three weeks later 5 Aug 1830, James > Mcintosh merchant in Grantown and Christian Grant were married. > What I cannot understand is why this was not sorted in 1823 when his son > was > born. Could May have said she would name and shame him when he expressed > his > interest in Christian? > I can find the family of James and Christian in the 1841 and 1851 census > but > not after this. > Would the group consider this as proof of the father even tho his death > cert. said 'reputed father' or would his son who registered the death not > have known whar was written in the records? > > > > > > > > > >> >>For what it's worth...I have a case where the father was severely >>reprimanded and > rebuked by the > Kirk Session. The process started in May and >>didn't get put away until almost Dec. They did marry a few weeks before >>the >>babe was born. I say babe...Kirk Session got their justice when the babe >> >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

THIS thread I am going to be watching carefully. Thanks, Alison for your input. IF I could possibly break thru my brick wall, I might be able to take my INNES family further back...But, I'm happy with 1740, with the except of the Kirk Session Minutes. I can't help, and have said this before, saying that 'those among us without sin should cast the first rock', and in my very humble opinion that's what the Kirk Session in Gartly did...threw rocks. They were the judge and the jury which I have a hard time swallowing; were they also not human, and did the babe deserved to be held responsible for ITS own appearance or not included in 'human'? Now, I have to give you this...They married about 3 weeks before the babe was born, and lady in question delivered about May 20, 1740 after a lengthy session of being summoned to appear. One excuse after the other, and sometimes Old John didn't show up either, so I can understand the frustration the Session Members would have had. Sorry, but in my view they were miserable men....There are other cases of which I took copies of when in Edinburgh; same parish. However I got so excited about finding the info on Old John Innes, I should have printed off more pages of the Minutes and maybe been able to satisfy myself with when he died. Oh, oh, why is hindsight always so 20/20? Lesson here for anyone going to search in Edinburgh...take a 'grocery list', copy all you can and then digest it. It's amazing what you learn, some of it between the lines....Goldie -----Original Message----- From: ALISON BROOKS Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ABERDEEN] Kirk Session Records Yes, agree Goldie. This discussion on illigitimency has been informative.Kirk Session records have helped me. I have been fortunate to be able to verify a 'reputed father' ? . On the St. Nicholas death cert. of my g..g.granfather, James McIntosh, Illegitimate, 21 Feb 1872, age 49., reputed father was given as James McIntosh mother May Burgess. >From his age at death and that on the 1851,61,and 71 census I looked for a >baptism in the Cromdale PRs for 1823 but was unable to find anything. When >Scotlandspeople came online I found a baptism for him in 1830 McIntosh James son of James McIntosh Merchant in Grantown in fornication Burgess with Marjorie Burgess in Grantown was born 10 May 1823 and baptised 25 july 1830 After mention on the list about Kirk Session records I got in touch with the Highland Archive Centre who said they had Kirk Session records for Cromdale for that time period. I paid for a search,( which was not too expensive) and this is what they found, 4 July 1830, James McIntosh Merchant in Grantown appeared before the session requesting absolution from church scandal in order to entitle him to church privileges. This was granted on payment of the usual fee and the account ledger shows that 16 shillings was paid that day.. James McIntosh merchant in Grantown fornication. No mention of May Burgess. I thought that he had done this to enable his son to be baptised but then I found an entry in the Cromdale PRs three weeks later 5 Aug 1830, James Mcintosh merchant in Grantown and Christian Grant were married. What I cannot understand is why this was not sorted in 1823 when his son was born. Could May have said she would name and shame him when he expressed his interest in Christian? I can find the family of James and Christian in the 1841 and 1851 census but not after this. Would the group consider this as proof of the father even tho his death cert. said 'reputed father' or would his son who registered the death not have known whar was written in the records? > >For what it's worth...I have a case where the father was severely >reprimanded and rebuked by the Kirk Session. The process started in May and >didn't get put away until almost Dec. They did marry a few weeks before >the >babe was born. I say babe...Kirk Session got their justice when the babe > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Yes, agree Goldie. This discussion on illigitimency has been informative.Kirk Session records have helped me. I have been fortunate to be able to verify a 'reputed father' ? . On the St. Nicholas death cert. of my g..g.granfather, James McIntosh, Illegitimate, 21 Feb 1872, age 49., reputed father was given as James McIntosh mother May Burgess. From his age at death and that on the 1851,61,and 71 census I looked for a baptism in the Cromdale PRs for 1823 but was unable to find anything. When Scotlandspeople came online I found a baptism for him in 1830 McIntosh  James son of James McIntosh Merchant in Grantown in fornication  Burgess   with Marjorie Burgess in Grantown was born 10 May 1823 and baptised                  25 july 1830 After mention on the list about Kirk Session records I got in touch with the Highland Archive Centre who said they had Kirk Session records for Cromdale for that time period. I paid for a search,( which was not too expensive) and this is what they found, 4 July 1830, James McIntosh Merchant in Grantown appeared before the session requesting absolution from church scandal in order to entitle him to church privileges. This was granted on payment of the usual fee and the account ledger shows that 16 shillings was paid that day.. James McIntosh merchant in Grantown fornication. No mention of May Burgess. I thought that he had done this to enable his son to be baptised but then I found an entry in the Cromdale PRs three weeks later 5 Aug 1830, James Mcintosh merchant in Grantown and Christian Grant were married. What I cannot understand is why this was not sorted in 1823 when his son was born. Could May have said she would name and shame him when he expressed his interest in Christian? I can find the family of James and Christian in the 1841 and 1851 census but not after this. Would the group consider this as proof of the father even tho his death cert. said 'reputed father' or would his son who registered the death not have known whar was written in the records? > >For what it's worth...I have a case where the father was severely >reprimanded and rebuked by the Kirk Session.  The process started in May and >didn't get put away until almost Dec.  They did marry a few weeks before the >babe was born.  I say babe...Kirk Session got their justice when the babe > >

Oh, I love 8h. I found a record once for a child who I believe may have been my 5th g.grandfather, only no name was recorded, only the parents' names were there. The entry was scrawled across the page, too, as though somebody had been in a terrible hurry when they wrote it. :( Cheers, Lynne. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Johnson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 12:40 AM Subject: [ABERDEEN] Missing OPR records > Recent postings referred to baptismal records being missing in the OPRs. > Here are some of the reasons for this: > 1. An entire register book has gone missing/has been destroyed in > various ways (flood/fire/mice/damp/etc.) > 2. One of more pages have been cut/torn from the register book (usually > by a genealogist determined to have the original record; this also > happens with newspapers). > 3. One or more pages have been damaged (torn, damaged by mould) > 4. One or more pages have had entries lost by an ink spill covering part > of the page. > 5. Fading of the ink, to the point of illegibility. > 6. Poor handwriting, resulting in an entry being credited to the wrong > surname/forename > 7. The entry is not in the correct date order, and is in another part of > the register. This should be findable in the indexes, but may not make > it clear that it is not in its correct place. > 8. The entry is simply not there. This can be: > 8a - parents refused to pay for the entry to be registered. There was > also a short period of taxation on entries which had the same effect. > 8b - church official forgot to enter it in the register. > 8c - The child was baptised in another church denomination. > 8d - The parents did not believe in baptism, so no baptism occurred. > 8e - The session clerk disappeared before entering the baptism (One > register mentions that the previous session clerk had suddenly emigrated). > 8f - The minister/Session clerk got the family name wrong > (mis-spelled/mis-heard/wrongly copied from notes/etc.) > 8g - The entry uses a gaelic version of the child's name (or an English > version). e.g Peter/Patrick. > 8h - the minister forgot the child's name, and left it blank in the > register- quite common! > The above will do for starters. Others will have discovered more examples! > Gordon Johnson. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I agree with your statement and think it right that we try and understand how the Scots lived their lives and 'married' one way or the other. The fact that today people are permitted to live together without the fear of scorn or retribution is neither here nor there but irregular marriage it is not. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary Simpson" <[email protected]> I was just putting in the point that there are many different reasons for the term Irregular Marriage, and it doesn't always mean what you might first think it to mean. But thank you Gavin, for explaining all the differences, Mary

On 05/08/2013 16:19, Mary Simpson wrote: > Gavin you were correct, they were married in the parish of St Nicholas at 1 King Street, by declaration in front of the bride's mother and sister. The information came from the Statutory Marriage Register through Scotland's People website. The Aberdeen Post Office Directory for 1903-4 gives the occupants of 1 King Street as: Abdn Chamber of Commerce M'Combie & Ewen, advocates The address is a few steps away from the Sheriff Court, and many "Marriages by Declaration" were effected in various lawyers' offices nearby (in the low-numbered addresses of King Street or Union Street). > ... > Forgive my confusion, but I get very muddled with the Scottish churches and regulations, There's no need to. The churches pretty well cease to have any relevance for records of Baptism, Marriage or Death from 1855 when compulsory Civil Registration was introduced. There was a statutory obligation (enforced by fines) to record all such events with the Registrar, so the only useful source of information is going to be ScotlandsPeople. > I was just putting in the point that there are many different reasons for the term Irregular Marriage, Not really. An "irregular marriage" in Scotland was simply one not celebrated by a Minister of Religion. There were precisely 3 forms of such irregular (but perfectly legal) marriages, although the great majority were probably what we have in this case, namely a Marriage by Declaration. Gavin Bell