This is my first post to this Lists but I have posted the message below to other Lists. Apologies if you have read it already. I’m currently focusing on FREEMAN which is my maternal family line.  I'm the eldest son of Mary FREEMAN, youngest daughter of Walter FREEMAN who married Isabella ADAM of Johnshaven in Benholm Parish 27th Aug,1898.  Mary MACKIE FREEMAN married Alexander [aka Sandy ] PITTENDREIGH 11th Sept 1937 in Benholm Parish, Kincardineshire I have my PITTENDREIGH line back to William PTTENDREIGH who married Helen CATTO 15 June 1818 in Udny Parish.  I would obviously like to take this line further back and locate William’s parents for a start.  I’m happy to share data with anyone else researching this line?   Had much more success with my FREEMAN line which Itake back to John FREEMAN who married Isobel JEAMIE 1st April, 1681 Bervie Parish.  But I have hit an irritating problem.  Their son, Alexander, my Gx5 grandfather who was baptised in Bervie Parish 30th Aug 1691 was obviously 'married' in the early 1700s, but to whom?  The Bervie OPR records him fathering six LAWFUL children between 1713 & 1728. The same clerk, I can tell by the hand writing, who recorded all six baptisms lists him as a fisherman in Gourdon, but never once does he recorded the name of the mother. This practice of not recording mothers is also found in the Benholm OPR at this time.  Maybe women were not considered that relevant when recording births? Searching for a marriage in Scotlandspeople from the Parish of Kinneff south to St Cyrus shows only one Alexander FREEMAN marriage in this period: An Alexander FREEMAN married an Elspet CORMAK in Kinneff & Catterline in 1725 but this  marriage is too late for all but the last child born 1728. There are no death records to search for this area in this period and hope of finding an MI listing Alexander’s spouse that far back in Benholm or Bervie graveyards seems like wishful thinking. Any suggests? Sandy

Hi Sandy, There has just been some interesting discussion on this very topic - it would be worth you looking at the archives for the last week or so. Women were often regarded as completely irrelevant by the clerk. But do remember also that it's not the birth that is being recorded (the birth was irrelevant to the church except in cases of illegitimacy), but the baptism. It may well be that it was only the father who took the child to be baptised if the mother was still in childbed, or it may simply be that he was seen as the only parent worth recording. As someone previously said, often a change of clerk means a complete change in the detail recorded - sometimes we are lucky, and sometimes not! Most of the OPRs that I have consulted are easy to read but rather short on the sort of details we would consider important - but then (unfortunately) they weren't writing with us in mind! Louise Sandy wrote: > never once does he > recorded the name of the mother. > This practice of not recording mothers is also found in the Benholm OPR at > this time.  Maybe women were not considered that relevant when recording > births?

Thanks for that Louise, I've had a look at the archive as you suggested.  Being new to this List it is pure coincidence that I asked the 'Missing Mother' question now so soon after it had been discussed.   I can confirm from my own experience of OPRs that Clerks often pleased themselves about what was recorded.  I've been part of a team working on indexing the Dumfries Parish OPRs deaths and burial records. (Starts in 1617 and runs to 1854 -- published up to 1812 so far).   The SR records, however, being recorded in preprinted record books had specific slots to fill.  Provided the informant knew the detail the Registrar recorded it.  That said I would suggest that some of these early Registrars display an arrogance of officialdom that can't be said to have totally disappeared yet. In Benholm Parish, Kincardineshire, they have 'corrected' BLEWS to BLUES, McBEY to McBAY, McKAY to MACKIE to name just a few I have so far come across. I'm not surprised that so many early variations of my own name Aberdeenshire, PIT(T)(EN)DR(E)(I)(G)(C)H, have now disappeared.  Ah well it all adds to the 'fun'.   Regards, Sandy in Dumfries SW Scotland     --- On Tue, 6/10/09, medionemeton@blueyonder.co.uk <medionemeton@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: From: medionemeton@blueyonder.co.uk <medionemeton@blueyonder.co.uk> Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] FREEMAN & PITTENDREIGH FAMILY RESEARCH To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Date: Tuesday, 6 October, 2009, 8:51 PM Hi Sandy, There has just been some interesting discussion on this very topic - it would be worth you looking at the archives for the last week or so. Women were often regarded as completely irrelevant by the clerk. But do remember also that it's not the birth that is being recorded (the birth was irrelevant to the church except in cases of illegitimacy), but the baptism. It may well be that it was only the father who took the child to be baptised if the mother was still in childbed, or it may simply be that he was seen as the only parent worth recording. As someone previously said, often a change of clerk means a complete change in the detail recorded - sometimes we are lucky, and sometimes not! Most of the OPRs that I have consulted are easy to read but rather short on the sort of details we would consider important - but then (unfortunately) they weren't writing with us in mind! Louise Sandy wrote: > never once does he recorded the name of the mother. > This practice of not recording mothers is also found in the Benholm OPR at > this time.  Maybe women were not considered that relevant when recording > births? ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message