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

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 >

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. >