Terrific, Gordon! Thank you. I found this .pdf document interesting http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/history.pdf So far as baptism is concerned, my mother made the excuse that it was war time and she couldnt get the family together. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Johnson" <[email protected]> > 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.

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. By 1904 the bride and her mother and sister had moved back to her late father's birthplace, the parish of Old Deer from Fraserburgh, and her mother died in Mintlaw in 1919. The groom was quite a lot older than the bride, 43 to 24 and he was a butler at Aden House. She was a nurse, and as her mother & sister were witnesses at the wedding, I can't imagine that parental disapproval was involved. His father, a farmer, was dead by 1904. As to their disappearance, perhaps he was off butling on distant shores …. Forgive my confusion, but I get very muddled with the Scottish churches and regulations, 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 5 Aug 2013, at 14:54, Gavin Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/08/2013 13:16, Mary Simpson wrote: >> Thank you Gavin for more information regarding non Kirk of Scotland marriages, although it has left me even more confused. >> >> The couple were both from Old Deer ( groom ) and Fraserburgh ( bride ) and actually married in St Nicholas, Aberdeen > > St Nicholas Kirk or St Nicholas Parish? If it was St Nicholas Kirk then > the Minister's certificate that he had married them ought to have > satisfied the Registrar. > >> and then with or before the Sheriff in King St., Aberdeen. > > They were not *married* "with or before the Sheriff" - at most he would > have given his opinion that they had (previously to appearing before > him) undergone some sort of valid marriage. > > >> They were both Episcopalian, and the bride's father's family were also from Old Deer, so I don't know why they didn't marry in St Margaret's in Aberdeen or back in Fraserburgh or Old Deer. They both disappear afterwards - I think that they must have emigrated but don't know where to. They don't appear on the 1901 or 1911 Scottish or English / Welsh census. > > The fact that they married, not at home, but in the relative anonymity > of the big city, together with their subsequent disappearance, may > reflect parental disapproval. Perhaps one of the fathers, waving a big > stick, had gone to the Sheriff seeking to have the marriage annulled. > > What are your sources for the information, and what (exactly) do they say? > > > 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

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.

On 05/08/2013 13:16, Mary Simpson wrote: > Thank you Gavin for more information regarding non Kirk of Scotland marriages, although it has left me even more confused. > > The couple were both from Old Deer ( groom ) and Fraserburgh ( bride ) and actually married in St Nicholas, Aberdeen St Nicholas Kirk or St Nicholas Parish? If it was St Nicholas Kirk then the Minister's certificate that he had married them ought to have satisfied the Registrar. > and then with or before the Sheriff in King St., Aberdeen. They were not *married* "with or before the Sheriff" - at most he would have given his opinion that they had (previously to appearing before him) undergone some sort of valid marriage. > They were both Episcopalian, and the bride's father's family were also from Old Deer, so I don't know why they didn't marry in St Margaret's in Aberdeen or back in Fraserburgh or Old Deer. They both disappear afterwards - I think that they must have emigrated but don't know where to. They don't appear on the 1901 or 1911 Scottish or English / Welsh census. The fact that they married, not at home, but in the relative anonymity of the big city, together with their subsequent disappearance, may reflect parental disapproval. Perhaps one of the fathers, waving a big stick, had gone to the Sheriff seeking to have the marriage annulled. What are your sources for the information, and what (exactly) do they say? Gavin Bell

Thank you Gavin for more information regarding non Kirk of Scotland marriages, although it has left me even more confused. The couple were both from Old Deer ( groom ) and Fraserburgh ( bride ) and actually married in St Nicholas, Aberdeen and then with or before the Sheriff in King St., Aberdeen. They were both Episcopalian, and the bride's father's family were also from Old Deer, so I don't know why they didn't marry in St Margaret's in Aberdeen or back in Fraserburgh or Old Deer. They both disappear afterwards - I think that they must have emigrated but don't know where to. They don't appear on the 1901 or 1911 Scottish or English / Welsh census. Another puzzle! Mary

On 05/08/2013 12:01, Mary Simpson wrote: > Another bit - perhaps useful? > > We have an " irregular marriage " for my husband's great aunt, in 1904 in Aberdeen. But the reason for this was that both parties involved were non-conformist, Episcopalian, The new law about Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages, which came into force in 1855, rather tended to assume (a) that all marriages would be solemnised in Church, and (b) that the Church was the Kirk of Scotland. The invalidity of (a) was soon noticed, and necessitated the procedure whereby irregular (but perfectly legal) marriages could be "homologated" by appearing before the Sheriff and obtaining a Warrant. I do not know the date at which other religions were recognised as valid dispensers of "regular" marriage, but I rather think it was earlier than 1904, so I am not sure that your reason for the "iregular" marriage is correct. > and had to be married with > > " a warrant of Sherrif Substitutes " and listed as an irregular marriage, although they were very much married! They were not "married with a Warrant of the Sheriff-Substitute". The likely sequence of events is that they went through a "Marriage by Declaration", which was perfectly valid under Scots Law, but which, as a result of faulty drafting of the relevant Acts, left them without a certificate from a Minister, so the Registrar would refuse to record the Marriage - and failure to register a marriage was a criminal offence. So they appeared before the Sheriff who, if he was satisfied (a) that they were free to marry each other and (b) that some form of irregular marriage had taken place, would issue a Warrant which would satisfy the requirements of the Registrar. Gavin Bell

Another bit - perhaps useful? We have an " irregular marriage " for my husband's great aunt, in 1904 in Aberdeen. But the reason for this was that both parties involved were non-conformist, Episcopalian, and had to be married with " a warrant of Sherrif Substitutes " and listed as an irregular marriage, although they were very much married! So sometimes other reasons were clued in for this title. Mary

Janet my point is that there are copious errors in official records so they are not proof but consistent records will create a body of proof.  One record alone whether it is labeled as official or not can prove nothing.   It has nothing to do what what we feel, although feelings do complicate the work of the genealogist as people try to change the reality to fit a "nicer" or "better accepted" version of the story...   truth is something that humans seem to have in short supply in certain situations.   > > > >Additionally my point is that a genealogist has to be able to deal with adoption and births that may have been to a married woman with the genetic father someone other than the person stated on the Church or Birth record.  Sometimes you find the other story in letters or diaries of the family.....  these will contradict official records. > > >A genealogist has to be able to navigate the twists and turns of families.  And official records are just as prone to human errors (I am not just referring to a transcription error here) as any other kind of record.   Sometimes the family records are more accurate than the official ones like in the case of my grandfather and his twin sister.  If he had never needed his birth certificate for a trip to Canada the family may never have learned of this error.  So errors can languish in records for years...   his did for over 78 years! > > >To validate a record I require at least 3 independent sources that do not draw upon each other.  Some people want more and some will take one but in my mind that s not validation.... > > >I have multiple records that all appear to validate the wrong John Penny as the father of William Penny... it took a team of researchers in 6 countries 2 years to untangle that mess and we were able to prove who the right John Penny was and it is different than most of the trees published on the web.  Many of those who worked on that were members of this list.  Official records "seemed" to prove something that in reality they did not and when we found other records that brought those first into question we were able to prove by using both family stories, church records, and civil records the truth...   it was not easy....   > > >Laura > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Janet <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 6:08 PM >>Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Irregular Marriage >> >> >>To my way of thinking it isnt a question of what we perceive more that we are >>pursuing the truth in legal documented form. We need to have a great deal of >>knowledge of what did happen or could have happened.  A best guess it is not >>if it is capable of being validated. We can follow what we have seen to be >>the case, when error creeps in, but validate we must where a person's name >>and status is concerned.  Unfortunately along the way we find people who >>like the look of a name and grab it and put into their records without >>validating it first. >> >> >>(rest deleted to be able to send this response) >> >>Janet >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------- >>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 >> >> >> > >

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 was baptised but wasn't mentioned as a "manchild', or 'womanchild'...no given name then the word witness....left blank. This if off the OPR and the Kirk Session Minutes. He was cited for Antinuptial fornication. It is my brick wall. But I suspect when the Kirk Session folks didn't like what went on they 'got their grain of salt' in other ways as well as monetary. Nothing I can do about it or do to change it, just strikes me as odd that the folks who sat in judgment on others took it out on the innocent babe. My opinion for what it's worth. Another case I have is also an illegitimate child, which I can't prove. She turns up in some family history someone else did and when I found her, I thought I must have missed someone somewhere along the line. So I back tracked several times, and couldn't come up with the girl. The only logical explanation is that she belonged to my GG grandmother before she married my GG grandfather and I know she was raised by GG Grandmother's parents, from the census info. She carries that families surname. And of course, for us overseas, unless we actually could go and see the Kirk Session Minutes or hire a Researcher, we are 'hooped' as we say here, to prove it. And even then, maybe couldn't prove it. I think one of the hardest things I had to get thru my beanie, and there was lots of them when I began this searching, was to understand the OPR's. Some give so much info, some just a list of children's names and marriages. No conformity, I guess is what I am trying to say here. And I suspect it is the same for others who are starting out as well. And also, we sometimes forget the Church may have burned or the records eaten by mice when we can't find what we 'think' we should find. I tell people I am able to help to keep thinking outside of the box. Just because you think it should be that way, doesn't make it so. But I want also want to add this conversation on Illegitimacy and records, et all, has been most informative. Goldie -----Original Message----- From: Janet Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 2:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Poor Law payments I agree its worth checking local records. A baptismal record may be found for an illegitimate child perhaps. I understand strenuous efforts were made to discover the identity of the putative father because the Parish Official could extract a payment from him. Before the Poor Law of 1835/37 did Scotland have a Bastardy Bond or Order which served as an Affiliation Order where the father had been found, as they did in England & Wales? Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hardy" <[email protected]> To: "Aberdeen Roots Web" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 8:28 AM Subject: [ABERDEEN] Poor Law payments > Janet & Goldie > "Poor Law payments? I learned a while back that Inland Revenue and > Pensions records are destroyed when the subject dies so its not > worth checking to see if maintenance had been declared." > If you can get to Edinburgh one source is the Sheriff Court Records - > those > responsible for administering the Poor Law would try to find someone else > or another parish to pay the costs of support. Often this meant getting > the > mother to sue the putative father for inlying expenses and maintenance of > the child until the age of 12, and the expenses of the process. The case > would be under the name of the mother - "Poor ..". These cases are > relatively common from the late 1790s, though I suspect that often the > families made their own private arrangements. Whether the father paid is a > different matter. > Poor Law records are local rather than national records and have often > survived. > > John ------------------------------- 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 its worth checking local records. A baptismal record may be found for an illegitimate child perhaps. I understand strenuous efforts were made to discover the identity of the putative father because the Parish Official could extract a payment from him. Before the Poor Law of 1835/37 did Scotland have a Bastardy Bond or Order which served as an Affiliation Order where the father had been found, as they did in England & Wales? Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hardy" <[email protected]> To: "Aberdeen Roots Web" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 8:28 AM Subject: [ABERDEEN] Poor Law payments > Janet & Goldie > "Poor Law payments? I learned a while back that Inland Revenue and > Pensions records are destroyed when the subject dies so its not > worth checking to see if maintenance had been declared." > If you can get to Edinburgh one source is the Sheriff Court Records - those > responsible for administering the Poor Law would try to find someone else > or another parish to pay the costs of support. Often this meant getting the > mother to sue the putative father for inlying expenses and maintenance of > the child until the age of 12, and the expenses of the process. The case > would be under the name of the mother - "Poor ..". These cases are > relatively common from the late 1790s, though I suspect that often the > families made their own private arrangements. Whether the father paid is a > different matter. > Poor Law records are local rather than national records and have often > survived. > > John

Liz, I hoped someone else might have contributed to this question. I think it needs research and we all have a different view point. In earliest times it was the Church that was the law maker. One had to go to the Church to dissolve a marriage by an Act of Parliament prior to the Matrimonial Acts in about 1857. A child was either a bastard or it wasnt. In the eyes of the Church a child was/is illegitimate if the parents weren't married. I doubt it has changed, its just that tolerance has become more widespread. One cannot change the definition of the word illegitimate for record keeping purposes and there would have had to have been some conformity. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "liza stuart" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:59 PM Subject: [ABERDEEN] Irregular marriage > Hello > > I was wondering if common-law marriages in the 1860 era did not need to be > sanctioned why were the children still noted as illegitimate on the birth > certificate? > > Thanks for a reply > Liz

A question was raised under "Irregular marriages" about whether the description "illegitmate" was still in use on birth certificates. My reply is that over which you posted. I dont think any one of us who is legitimate can tell those otherwise how they should feel simply because we dont know how it has affected their lives. As I said earlier there are still some who choose to apply their long memories and deliver prejudice. Prejudice in itself is hurtful. We also dont necessarily know the age of the person who is perhaps mentioned in posts sent here/ It is true otherwise that the law has improved their rights. Where there have been wars there has been illegitimate births and sometimes the child wasnt told and found for themselves which is another awful situation in life. In England & Wales illegitimate, including adopted persons could inherit under the Wills of their adopted parents under the Legitimacy Act 1967. One finds the position in Scotland here http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/content/help/index.aspx?402 Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Graham" [email protected] > I have a half memory that there was a law change at some point which > altered the status of illegitimate children with regard to their parents' > estates. If I am correct this then allowed an illegitimate child some > inheritance rights where previously they had no entitlement. > This a pretty vague memory I should stress. > Since the term "illegitimate" was what was used until relatively recently > I have difficulty in understanding why it should upset anyone now when used > in that historical perspective. It is certainly very useful in a family > history research context. > Tom > > > On 1 August 2013 13:03, Janet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A useful document containing a little history: (Scotland) Extract from >> .pdf >> document http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/history.pdf >> >> As to the term "illegitimate" >> >> The use of the term "illegitimate" in column 1 of the birth and death >> registers was discontinued from 1919 (Registrar General's amending >> regulation >> to registrars, 19 December 1918). The regulation applied not only to new >> entries in the registers but also to the issuing of extracts from earlier >> records which were issued without the word "illegitimate" appearing. >> Registrars still kept a careful record of the numbers of illegitimate >> births >> in their district to include in the statistical returns submitted to the >> Registrar General. >> >> >> Janet

I have a half memory that there was a law change at some point which altered the status of illegitimate children with regard to their parents' estates. If I am correct this then allowed an illegitimate child some inheritance rights where previously they had no entitlement. This a pretty vague memory I should stress. Since the term "illegitimate" was what was used until relatively recently I have difficulty in understanding why it should upset anyone now when used in that historical perspective. It is certainly very useful in a family history research context. Tom On 1 August 2013 13:03, Janet <[email protected]> wrote: > A useful document containing a little history: (Scotland) Extract from .pdf > document http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/history.pdf > > As to the term "illegitimate" > > The use of the term "illegitimate" in column 1 of the birth and death > registers was discontinued from 1919 (Registrar General's amending > regulation > to registrars, 19 December 1918). The regulation applied not only to new > entries in the registers but also to the issuing of extracts from earlier > records which were issued without the word "illegitimate" appearing. > Registrars still kept a careful record of the numbers of illegitimate > births > in their district to include in the statistical returns submitted to the > Registrar General. > > > Janet > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Janet & Goldie "Poor Law payments? I learned a while back that Inland Revenue and Pensions records are destroyed when the subject dies so its not worth checking to see if maintenance had been declared." If you can get to Edinburgh one source is the Sheriff Court Records - those responsible for administering the Poor Law would try to find someone else or another parish to pay the costs of support. Often this meant getting the mother to sue the putative father for inlying expenses and maintenance of the child until the age of 12, and the expenses of the process. The case would be under the name of the mother - "Poor ..". These cases are relatively common from the late 1790s, though I suspect that often the families made their own private arrangements. Whether the father paid is a different matter. Poor Law records are local rather than national records and have often survived. John

To my way of thinking it isnt a question of what we perceive more that we are pursuing the truth in legal documented form. We need to have a great deal of knowledge of what did happen or could have happened. A best guess it is not if it is capable of being validated. We can follow what we have seen to be the case, when error creeps in, but validate we must where a person's name and status is concerned. Unfortunately along the way we find people who like the look of a name and grab it and put into their records without validating it first. It is my view that illegitimacy was first against the ruling of the Church and secondly a social stigma, the latter being so when contraception was available to use and we can find out when it was first available. One cannot wipe away the personal experience of having been branded by authorities because of social stigma; it is with that person for life. Unfortunately when people have the ability not to be prejudiced they apparently find a long memory, often quite out of character, and apply that prejudice unmercifully. There would be Parish records as well as baptismal records where the family followed the rules of the Church. If there is an error on a legal document it can be formally corrected on application, just as a father's name can be included on a birth record after the event. Nowadays we see it occur all too often where a document is transcribed incorrectly because the transcriber doesn't know how to spell the masculine gender and the feminine gender of the same name nor apparently do they bother to look it up which the genealogist has to be aware of. In the case of a legal Adoption Order, the child has a second birth certificate and is no longer the son or daughter of his or her natural mother and father. The natural mother has a period during which she can change her mind before the Order is given. We are all capable of proving who we are without difficulty or contradiction by legal documents, sworn Affidavit or statement. We look for a child of a marriage every 2 two yrs unless the mother has died of puerperal fever from childbirth before the introduction of contraception. When engaged in genealogy we follow what is on the document of record and pursue the possibility of error until it has been proved one way or the other or place a note against it. So far as there is an ability for a female not to change her name on marriage, in terms of genealogy we are bound by a 100 yr rule of privacy so we are not considering such a modern conduct. In another generation those who continue to document their families will have a whole new set of possibilities to pursue. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald and Laura" <[email protected]> The age old debate of genetics vs environment. I believe genetics gives you raw material to work with....but you decide what to do with it and a lot of that comes from environment of what you learn to value.... in genealogy we have many twists and turns. Adoptions, children who have legitimate recorded parents but the father is not the father, children born to members of a family but listed as born to others in the family.... the list goes on..... this is why genealogy is a best guess based on research but you can't prove something with a record alone. My grandfather and his twin sister were recorded with the wrong birth names, making my grandfather's feminine and my aunt's masculine. Now the family knew their real names and no one would ever dare call my grandfather Josephine! When he discovered this error he raised enough of a ruckus that the clerk made an addendum to the record correcting it stating that the man had convinced him he was who he was....

I was surprised to see text so prominently about Scotland, including the Jacobite Uprising under "Timeline" The account is free. Newspaper site adds rare police records: Family historians may now find it easier to track down their criminal ancestors following the addition of new records to an online newspaper archive. Last Chance to Read http://www.lastchancetoread.com/ includes over 150 newspaper titles and 3,000 individual print editions dating back to the 17th century. The latest pages to go on the web hail from copies of the Police Gazette published between 1899 and 1900, building on a collection that already hosts older editions of the newspaper from 1831 onwards. Printed in London, the Gazette was distributed to police stations across Britain and can provide researchers with reports of trials and details of suspected criminals. Janet

A useful document containing a little history: (Scotland) Extract from .pdf document http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/history.pdf As to the term "illegitimate" The use of the term "illegitimate" in column 1 of the birth and death registers was discontinued from 1919 (Registrar General's amending regulation to registrars, 19 December 1918). The regulation applied not only to new entries in the registers but also to the issuing of extracts from earlier records which were issued without the word "illegitimate" appearing. Registrars still kept a careful record of the numbers of illegitimate births in their district to include in the statistical returns submitted to the Registrar General. Janet

I would agree Goldie. My second great grandmother was found out when a letter had been sent to the Elders (?) of the Kirk. Was there a clue in the given name of the child? It may be a long shot but I wonder if its worth applying for medical records. Maybe something said or revealed when the mother gave birth as many women are inclined to do! Poor Law payments? I learned a while back that Inland Revenue and Pensions records are destroyed when the subject dies so its not worth checking to see if maintenance had been declared. Was the child born close to a census year? Perhaps the male lived close by. I do check on the identities of others in the census where I find my ancestors. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Goldie & Lido Doratti" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Irregular Marriage > In a case like that, I'd be wanting to see the Kirk Session minutes to read > if there was a comment there. But if there is nothing, I'd say you were at > a dead stop. Just a sad ending to that story, Goldie. >

A fascinating family tale, Margaret. We often wonder about how our parents of fairly elementary education have given rise to so many graduates and other high-achievers in all the succeeding generations. Ray Hennessy www.whatsinaname.net On 31 July 2013 23:50, <[email protected]> wrote: > From a genealogical standpoint, yes, you could say it was sad. However, > the legally-fatherless baby was raised (along with a cousin who was > the illegitimate daughter of his mother's sister) by his maternal > grandparents who were affectionate "parents" to the children. They were > particularly proud of the boy, who earned an engineering degree at > university, inherited a prosperous horse-breeding farm from a childless > uncle, and became a civic politician in later life. This was, by the way, > in Canada, although the boy's grandparents and mother were Scots-born. Not > the same detail available in rural southern Ontario records in the 19th > century as in Scottish kirk session records. > > His carefree mother was a performer in the music halls, and many of her > descendants are active in the theatre and music worlds today, while > others are engineers, lawyers, or politicians. We will never know which > influences came from the unknown father, but the talents are there as > personal evidence which can be followed even if the names and dates are > lost. > > Margaret Gibbs > >

That's a heartwarming story, Margaret. Thanks for sharing. Donna Holland -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Irregular Marriage From a genealogical standpoint, yes, you could say it was sad. However, the legally-fatherless baby was raised (along with a cousin who was the illegitimate daughter of his mother's sister) by his maternal grandparents who were affectionate "parents" to the children. They were particularly proud of the boy, who earned an engineering degree at university, inherited a prosperous horse-breeding farm from a childless uncle, and became a civic politician in later life. This was, by the way, in Canada, although the boy's grandparents and mother were Scots-born. Not the same detail available in rural southern Ontario records in the 19th century as in Scottish kirk session records. His carefree mother was a performer in the music halls, and many of her descendants are active in the theatre and music worlds today, while others are engineers, lawyers, or politicians. We will never know which influences came from the unknown father, but the talents are there as personal evidence which can be followed even if the names and dates are lost. Margaret Gibbs On 31/07/2013 2:27 PM, Goldie & Lido Doratti wrote: > In a case like that, I'd be wanting to see the Kirk Session minutes to > read if there was a comment there. But if there is nothing, I'd say > you were at a dead stop. Just a sad ending to that story, Goldie. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Irregular Marriage > > I have one branch of my family tree forever missing because one > great-great-grandmother had no idea who was the father of her son. My > great-grandfather used his mother's surname, Galbraith, confusing my > research until I found his > 1860 birth registration as "illegitimate", and someone had usefully > filled in the fact that he had been registered by his mother and the > line for the father's name said "unknown". > > Margaret Gibbs > > > > > > > On 30/07/2013 1:41 PM, Janet wrote: >> The whole point about a certificate is that it leads the genealogist >> to what might be the truth. We know mistakes occur on certificates >> because of the quality of information. >> Without a birth certificate, we wouldnt know the parents and in >> Scotland whether or not they were married. If the child knows the >> name of the father with certainty, and that there is no doubt about >> paternity it would still be possible to find his genealogy but if >> there is no documented event there is no proof, without DNA. >> The full blood relationship includes both parents. Without a father >> there's only one set of grand parents. >> Not all fathers' names appear on a certificate from the date of >> birth. I found in England & Wales now that a father's name can go on >> a certificate at a later date by formal documented request. I dont >> see that genealogy without both parents' names has the same purpose >> because each and every one of us has >> 2 parents. >> >> >> Janet >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "park louise" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:02 PM >> Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Irregular Marriage >> >> >>> It certainly hasn't been used on Scottish birth certificates >>> recently >>> - it's certainly not on my son's! >>> >>> Genealogy might even become easier with fewer marriages - no need to >>> find the marriage and (hopefully) both parents' original names on >>> the birth certificate! >>> >>> Louise >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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