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 > > >

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....