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....    The concept of legitimacy is a church one....   all children are legitimate and equally pure...   it is an unfortunate choice of words...   but one that has been there for centuries....   It would have been nicer to say something like RU or UU for recognized union and unrecognized union.  That to me does not sound like blaming or shaming.  But I am sure someone has a better idea.... In the modern world women often keep their maiden names now so you can't always tell from a modern record if there was a marriage or not unless the birth record records it as a married couple. I always tell the young people in my life to sit down and figure out who they want to be.  They may not be that person today, but work to become that person.  Humans can learn and shape themselves if they want to.  Of course you need to be realistic about your talents to do this well.  But it is very freeing... then you are in charge of who you are regardless of what your childhood or young adult life has been like.  It also removes blame from anyone except yourself for being who you are.... Laura >________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:50 PM >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 > > >

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 >

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

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 >

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 ________________________________ **

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

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 On 28 July 2013 19:03, Janet <[email protected]> wrote: > Ray, I am almost sure that the word "illegitimate" is no longer used on > official documents. I would have to look up chapter and verse again. The > information I gave relates to England & Wales of course and was to add to > what John (Hardy) usefully posted. > Fragmented families will find it difficult to pursue genealogy in future, > though one might hope children would ask. > > Janet > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ray Hennessy" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:29 PM > Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Irregular Marriage > > >> On 27 July 2013 21:59, Janet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> FYI - The doctrine was applied in England & Wales per Legitimacy Act 1926. >>> More recently under the Legitimacy Act 1967 a child born of a void >>> marriage >>> is regarded as legitimate if at the time of conception or subsequent >>> "marriage" either parent believed the marriage to be valid, and a >>> non-marital >>> child is automatically legitimised if his parents marry at some time after >>> his birth. >>> ===================== >> >> >> Janet >> >> Thanks for the detailed explanation of the way the law stands. >> >> Of course the whole of this idea of legitimacy is outmoded. So many >> couples don't see the need to marry - the majority these days - and I >> believe it is still a requirement that the birth certificates of their >> children still have "illegitimate" written on them however stable the >> parents' partnership may be. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Ray >> >> Ray Hennessy >> www.whatsinaname.net >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

On 28 July 2013 20:47, George Brander <[email protected]> wrote: > I have been told that it is possible for an abbreviated version of the > birth certificate to be issued where the pejorative and judgmental wording > "illegitimate" does not appear. > I much prefer the wording which appears on old Scottish records of > "natural" son or daughter. > > George Thank you, George, for that info. As you might guess this applies to some of our grandchildren and I spit tacks every time it comes up. If the moralists want to bang on in this way they should consider that it was not the child's doing! Fortunately there are fewer and fewer of these bigots around nowadays. Anecdote: When my cousin moved in with her boyfriend and had a child, my aunt was mortified and told no-one about it - pretended they were married. Over ten years later a long term friend said, Oh, Ann [her daughter & friend of my cousin] has had a baby" … later … "no she isn't married, why do you ask?" At this point my aunt 'confessed' about her lovely granddaughter. Luckily the granddaughter doesn't know she was a shameful secret for so long and helped look after her grandmother in her final illness. Given that five of my cousins either 'had to get married' or didn't bother, I still cannot fathom the reason for this sort of 'shame' in this day & age. None of the offspring have been any the worse for this situation - all have been loving, caring, and well-rounded members of the clan. Ray Hennessy www.whatsinaname.net

I have been told that it is possible for an abbreviated version of the birth certificate to be issued where the pejorative and judgmental wording "illegitimate" does not appear. I much prefer the wording which appears on old Scottish records of "natural" son or daughter. George George Brander Torre de la Horadada España On 28 July 2013 19:29, Ray Hennessy <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 July 2013 21:59, Janet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > FYI - The doctrine was applied in England & Wales per Legitimacy Act > 1926. > > More recently under the Legitimacy Act 1967 a child born of a void > marriage > > is regarded as legitimate if at the time of conception or subsequent > > "marriage" either parent believed the marriage to be valid, and a > > non-marital > > child is automatically legitimised if his parents marry at some time > after > > his birth. > > ===================== > > > Janet > > Thanks for the detailed explanation of the way the law stands. > > Of course the whole of this idea of legitimacy is outmoded. So many > couples don't see the need to marry - the majority these days - and I > believe it is still a requirement that the birth certificates of their > children still have "illegitimate" written on them however stable the > parents' partnership may be. > > Best wishes > > Ray > > Ray Hennessy > www.whatsinaname.net > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Ray, I am almost sure that the word "illegitimate" is no longer used on official documents. I would have to look up chapter and verse again. The information I gave relates to England & Wales of course and was to add to what John (Hardy) usefully posted. Fragmented families will find it difficult to pursue genealogy in future, though one might hope children would ask. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Hennessy" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Irregular Marriage > On 27 July 2013 21:59, Janet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> FYI - The doctrine was applied in England & Wales per Legitimacy Act 1926. >> More recently under the Legitimacy Act 1967 a child born of a void >> marriage >> is regarded as legitimate if at the time of conception or subsequent >> "marriage" either parent believed the marriage to be valid, and a >> non-marital >> child is automatically legitimised if his parents marry at some time after >> his birth. >> ===================== > > > Janet > > Thanks for the detailed explanation of the way the law stands. > > Of course the whole of this idea of legitimacy is outmoded. So many > couples don't see the need to marry - the majority these days - and I > believe it is still a requirement that the birth certificates of their > children still have "illegitimate" written on them however stable the > parents' partnership may be. > > Best wishes > > Ray > > Ray Hennessy > www.whatsinaname.net > > ------------------------------- > 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 27 July 2013 21:59, Janet <[email protected]> wrote: > FYI - The doctrine was applied in England & Wales per Legitimacy Act 1926. > More recently under the Legitimacy Act 1967 a child born of a void marriage > is regarded as legitimate if at the time of conception or subsequent > "marriage" either parent believed the marriage to be valid, and a > non-marital > child is automatically legitimised if his parents marry at some time after > his birth. > ===================== Janet Thanks for the detailed explanation of the way the law stands. Of course the whole of this idea of legitimacy is outmoded. So many couples don't see the need to marry - the majority these days - and I believe it is still a requirement that the birth certificates of their children still have "illegitimate" written on them however stable the parents' partnership may be. Best wishes Ray Ray Hennessy www.whatsinaname.net

FYI - The doctrine was applied in England & Wales per Legitimacy Act 1926. More recently under the Legitimacy Act 1967 a child born of a void marriage is regarded as legitimate if at the time of conception or subsequent "marriage" either parent believed the marriage to be valid, and a non-marital child is automatically legitimised if his parents marry at some time after his birth. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hardy" <[email protected]> Unlike England & Wales, an illegitimate child was legitimised by the subsequent marriage of their parents if they had been free to marry at the time of conception. This was important in some inheritance disputes, especially where the child could claim to have dual nationality.

Hi No, I don't have any connection Andy -----Original Message----- From: Cecil Rae Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Leslie researchers? Hello Andy Candlish, Am interested to know if you have had cnectionon with Colin & Joyce McClymont . Cec Rae, Melbourne. OZ

Just a couple of bullet points on the messages: Scottish Civil Law was based largely on the pre-Reformation Canon Law - e.g. changes were that marriage was not a sacrament, relationships by affinity (e.g. marriage to sister-in-law) and consanguinity were limited. Subsequent changes were: - Deceased’s Wife’s Sisters Marriage Act 1907- Deceased Brother’s Marriage Act 1921- Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1931 whichlegalised marriage between a man and his deceased wife’s niece, widow of his deceased uncle, his deceased wife’s aunt, and his deceased wife’s widow.- Family Law (Scotland) Act 2005 where a person can now marry their mother-in-law or father-in-law where death or divorce has ended the original marriage. Marriage by 'Repute' was a proof of marriage in civil disputes and not a form of marriage. The most recent cases I have found are an unsuccessful case in 2000 Ackerman vs, Blackburn http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/019_13_98.html and a successful one Doherty vs Vosilius http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/08_3_96.html The web site for the Scottish Law Commission's Report on Family Law of 1992 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc11/rfl-03.asp states that "There are never more than a few declarators of marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute per year. The cases I have seen of the Kirk requiring a couple irregularly married to go through another ceremony are few and limited to the generation after the Presbyterian Settlement of 1689/1690. After that it was usually a fine and a penance, and no second ceremony. There was also civil legislation on irregular marriage but this was haphazardly enforced, and often the concern was about the celebrations rather than the marriage. The suggestion that the bride's fertility was tested prior to marriage is one of those theories proposed by economic historians, especially of the Borders, that has little contemporary evidence. Basically it is an attempt to explain the 'high' percentage of brides who were pregnant at time of marriage using economic factors. Proving a marriage by future promise and consummation can lead to quite graphic records as to how the consummation was proved, illustrating how little privacy existed. More often the 'evidence' of consummation was the birth of a child and the Kirk would investigate whether this was ante-nuptial fornication or fornication. Unlike England & Wales, an illegitimate child was legitimised by the subsequent marriage of their parents if they had been free to marry at the time of conception. This was important in some inheritance disputes, especially where the child could claim to have dual nationality. Parental consent was not a requirement for a marriage to be valid. There was no minimum age (though usually considered to be about 12) until the Age of Marriage Act 1929 - the couple had to be capable of a rational decision. Most first marriages were, however, much later: 25/26 for the woman and 28/30 for the man. Scots law was 'revised ' in the 19th and 20th centuries to bring it into line with that of England & Wales. A second -hand copy of a Legal text book published before 1920 is an inexpensive way of learning more. e.g. Walton on Husband and Wife. Other material for those who want to learn more include: www.gla.ac.uk/departments/scottishwayofbirthanddeath/marriage/ 'Handfasting' in Scotland by A. E. Anton in The Scottish Historical Review, Vol. 37, No. 124, Part 2 (Oct., 1958), pp. 89-102Promises, Promises: Marriage Litigation in Scotland 1698-1830 by Leah LenemanWilliam Hay's Lectures on Marriage. Stair Society 1967. He was a lecturer at Aberdeen and died in 1542 so this shows marriage law before the Reformation. The Latin is translated.Covering a later period is Scottish Church Attitudes to Sex, Marriage, and the Family 1850-1914 by Kenneth Boyd. Edinburgh, 1980. John

-----Original Message----- From: Alex Jamieson Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [ABERDEEN] re Leslie I see there,s alot of interest in the name Leslie . My g.f was born 1867 near New Deer Aberdeenshire on the estate of Nethermuir which was owned by a Leslie . I know nothing of this property , size and the first name of owner would like any info. Thank you. Alex Jamieson ------------------------------- 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 see there,s alot of interest in the name Leslie . My g.f was born 1867 near New Deer Aberdeenshire on the estate of Nethermuir which was owned by a Leslie . I know nothing of this property , size and the first name of owner would like any info. Thank you. Alex Jamieson

Hello Andy Candlish, Am interested to know if you have had cnectionon with Colin & Joyce McClymont . Cec Rae, Melbourne. OZ ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: Cc: Sent:Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:29:55 +1000 Subject:Re: [ABERDEEN] Leslie researchers? Hi Irregular Marriages were lawful in Scotland up to 1940, the most well known of these are marriages at Gretna Green but they occurred all over Scotland. Just google Irregular Marriages Scotland. The 1861 Canadian Census has the families religion as P.F.C. This may stand for Presbyterian Free Church. The OPRs on Scotlandspeople are the registers of the Church of Scotland and whilst Scotlandspeople has a separate section for the Catholic Parish Registers they don't have other denominations such as the Free Church of Scotland. Unfortunately very few registers for the Free Church of Scotland are online as many of us looking for events between 1843 and 1854 have found. Andy -----Original Message----- From: Donna Holland Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Leslie researchers? Mary, Thanks for the advice and for the story about handfasting. I've looked it up on the internet and it's very interesting. However on the other hand it seems like something that was practiced more centuries ago rather than in the mid-1800's. It's still a fascinating bit of folklore, though. And yes, I'm keeping in mind the different spellings of Cumming/Cummin/Cummings. I'm also realizing that there were far too many Alexander's, Elizabeth's, Isabell's and James' in Scotland. :) Again, thank you for your help. D ------------------------------- 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 read somewhere that at the time a man wouldnt have wanted to marry a barren female and hand fasting suited that purpose quite well. In the spirit of friendly banter, is it not always weighted in favour of the male. Janet

Hi Ray, I confess ignorance of the situation in Scotland, so I am interested in your and Gavin's comments. However, the position on the other side of the channel, in the Netherlands, may give some indications of the legal position that Aberdeen may have inherited. The "promissa (or verba) de futura" was usually easy enough to prove as the couple would normally acknowledge their intentions to friends and family. The requirement of subsequent "copula carnalis" was a requirement for a valid marriage of this kind (one of three) in the Middle Ages, but by the time of the Council of Florence in 1439 it was acknowledged that although it gave marriage its sacramental and indissoluble character it was not a requirement for a valid marriage. I wonder if that did not also apply in Scotland. Can anyone point us to any authority to the effect that it was a legal requirement for validity? In any event, it was the days before contraceptives and copula carnalis was usually evidenced by pregnancy . . . The four witnesses requirement is a Muslim rule as far as I know. . Don't blame the lawyers. Blame the church! Steve On 25/07/2013 10:42 PM, Ray Hennessy wrote: > On 25 July 2013 19:10, Gavin Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > > "… <snip> >> There was another form of irregular marriage, namely "promise > subsquente copula" - if a man promised that he would marry a woman, and on > the basis of that promise she agreed to sleep with him, that > could constitute a marriage. Although how it could be proved in a court > of law is something of a puzzle. > … " > > Sounds to me like the present requirement for "evidence of Rape" in some > situations: there has to be at least four witnesses. Yeah, right! Don't > forget laws are made by lawyers for lawyers to grow rich, not for the rest > of us. Ever wondered why the Houses of Parliament have so many lawyers in > them?? > > Ray Hennessy > [the rest snipped]

On 25 July 2013 19:10, Gavin Bell <[email protected]> wrote: "… <snip> >There was another form of irregular marriage, namely "promise subsquente copula" - if a man promised that he would marry a woman, and on the basis of that promise she agreed to sleep with him, that could constitute a marriage. Although how it could be proved in a court of law is something of a puzzle. … " Sounds to me like the present requirement for "evidence of Rape" in some situations: there has to be at least four witnesses. Yeah, right! Don't forget laws are made by lawyers for lawyers to grow rich, not for the rest of us. Ever wondered why the Houses of Parliament have so many lawyers in them?? Ray Hennessy www.whatsinaname.net On 25 July 2013 19:10, Gavin Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25/07/2013 17:52, Sandy PITTENDREIGH wrote: > > ... > > Some marriages were proclaimed privately before witness. Although it > was not a requirement of law, such marriages were often confirmed by the > Sheriff at some later date. > > This only became necessary after 1855, because the legislation > introducing Civil Registration was faulty. It had assumed that all > marriages would be Kirk marriages, and consequently established no > mechanism whereby a (perfectly legal) "marriage by declaration" could be > recorded in the Civel Register. The trip to the Sheriff was the way > round this - if he was satisfied that a valid marriage had taken place, > he would issue a warrant to that effect, which would be accepted by the > Registrar. > > This second form of marriage required the couple and their witnesses to > report the marriage to the Sheriff. > > This isn't a "second form of marriage" - what the Sheriff had to > validate was generally a marriage "by declaration". > > There was another form of irregular marriage, namely "promise subsquente > copula" - if a man promised that he would marry a woman, and on the > basis of that promise she agreed to sleep with him, that could > constitute a marriage. Although how it could be proved in a court of > law is something of a puzzle. > > > 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 >