Goldie, I wrote the other day about if one needed a divorce at some point in time one had to apply to the Church first for it and an Act of Parliament would be issued, or not if the Church did not agree. In those days the woman had to produce all the evidence in support. It does help us if we can take a step back in time I think. I can only explain that the Church was the law, before the Matrimonial Causes Acts of about 1857. This may not necessarily apply in Scotland but the Kirk Sessions did take place after Sermon which confirms the position of the Kirk. I will see what more I can find, but I think someone else will be able to explain the position from their own knowledge better than I from my knowledge of the history of law. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Goldie & Lido Doratti" <[email protected]> To: "ALISON BROOKS" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Kirk Session Records > THIS thread I am going to be watching carefully. Thanks, Alison for your > input. IF I could possibly break thru my brick wall, I might be able to > take my INNES family further back...But, I'm happy with 1740, with the > except of the Kirk Session Minutes. I can't help, and have said this > before, saying that 'those among us without sin should cast the first > rock', > and in my very humble opinion that's what the Kirk Session in Gartly > did...threw rocks. They were the judge and the jury which I have a hard > time swallowing; were they also not human, and did the babe deserved to be > held responsible for ITS own appearance or not included in 'human'? > Now, I have to give you this...They married about 3 weeks before the babe > was born, and lady in question delivered about May 20, 1740 after a lengthy > session of being summoned to appear. One excuse after the other, and > sometimes Old John didn't show up either, so I can understand the > frustration the Session Members would have had. Sorry, but in my view they > were miserable men....There are other cases of which I took copies of when > in Edinburgh; same parish. However I got so excited about finding the info > on Old John Innes, I should have printed off more pages of the Minutes and > maybe been able to satisfy myself with when he died. Oh, oh, why is > hindsight always so 20/20? Lesson here for anyone going to search in > Edinburgh...take a 'grocery list', copy all you can and then digest it. > It's amazing what you learn, some of it between the lines....Goldie > > -----Original Message----- > From: ALISON BROOKS > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:37 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ABERDEEN] Kirk Session Records > > Yes, agree Goldie. This discussion on illigitimency has been > informative.Kirk Session records have helped me. > > I have been fortunate to be able to verify a 'reputed father' ? > . > On the St. Nicholas death cert. of my g..g.granfather, James McIntosh, > Illegitimate, 21 Feb 1872, age 49., reputed father was given as James > McIntosh mother May Burgess. > >>From his age at death and that on the 1851,61,and 71 census I looked for a >>baptism in the Cromdale PRs for 1823 but was unable to find anything. When >>Scotlandspeople came online I found a baptism for him in 1830 > McIntosh James son of James McIntosh Merchant in Grantown > in fornication > Burgess with Marjorie Burgess in Grantown was born 10 May 1823 and > baptised > 25 july > 1830 > > After mention on the list about Kirk Session records I got in touch with > the > Highland Archive Centre who said they had Kirk Session records for Cromdale > for that time period. > I paid for a search,( which was not too expensive) and this is what they > found, > > 4 July 1830, James McIntosh Merchant in Grantown appeared before the > session > requesting absolution from church scandal in order to entitle him to church > privileges. This was granted on payment of the usual fee and the account > ledger shows that 16 shillings was paid that day.. > James McIntosh merchant in Grantown fornication. > No mention of May Burgess. > I thought that he had done this to enable his son to be baptised but then I > found an entry in the Cromdale PRs three weeks later 5 Aug 1830, James > Mcintosh merchant in Grantown and Christian Grant were married. > What I cannot understand is why this was not sorted in 1823 when his son > was > born. Could May have said she would name and shame him when he expressed > his > interest in Christian? > I can find the family of James and Christian in the 1841 and 1851 census > but > not after this. > Would the group consider this as proof of the father even tho his death > cert. said 'reputed father' or would his son who registered the death not > have known whar was written in the records? > > > > > > > > > >> >>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 >> >> > > ------------------------------- > 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