> I am trying to find information on any children of John Burns > and Elizabeth Degnan who married at St. Andrews > Catholic Chapel Dundee on 12th November 1869. I can't find the > family on any census records. Well. The IGI lists one child of this couple, Helen, born 23 February 1872 in Bothwell, Lanarkshire. Using Dignan instead of Degnan finds no children. Using Dagnan finds Annie, born 25 December 1874 in Dalserf, also Lanarkshire. They don't seem to be in the 1881 census CD-Rom transcription, so it is possible that they had emigrated by then. Did they go to Australia? How old were John and Elizabeth when they married? Where were they living, and who were their parents? Best wishes Anne

>From Leviticus Ch.18 V.18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. In other words you can't marry your wife's sister, while she is alive. So did the church get it wrong, or choose to ignore the "in her life time" part. Colin On 2 August 2011 20:47, Wallace Fullerton <[email protected]> wrote: > Leviticus

Adrian Guy Etchells is quite right that the prohibition was based on the theological view (both Catholic and Protestant) that a husband and wife became 'one flesh' on marriage, and the prohibited degrees listed in Leviticus. This was a well-thought out theological position that dates back to the 13th centuryiof not earlier (and was used by Henry VIII to justify one of his divorces/annulments).Practice was another matter - as with anything else including the Ten Commandments. The interesting point is that practice varied significantly from the theological view that was incorporated into the law. Clearly most people did not regard it - or cousin marriage - as inappropriate, yet alone incest. There are very few cases where someone was prosecuted - it usually crops up in civil disputes about inheritance as a ploy to disinherit children of such a marriage as they would then be illegitimate and to justify the annulment of a marraige instead of a divorce. The repeal of the law that prohibited it was a very bitter dispute. John

I am trying to find information on any children of John Burns and Elizabeth Degnan who married at St. Andrews Catholic Chapel Dundee on 12th November 1869. I can't find the family on any census records. Thank you Valerie, Adelaide Australia

I have one of those - Man marries wife (no 2 as it happens) in Aberdeen, they have a few children, she dies. Man found (via census records) a couple of years later in Southampton with woman - who can only be his sister-in-law from Aberdeen - listed as 'sister'. Next census reveals that the couple are married and a child born in the same year as both the marriage and prior census - at which juncture I went looking for the law in relation to this marriage circumstance! (Birth & marriage happened around 1891 - family then found on 1901 census). Moral for the time in question - move as far away as possible from her family! Pat "Here's tae us! Wha's like us? Damn few! - an' they're a' deid!" Old Scots Toast Check out my website www.genesontheweb.co.uk PC>-----Original Message----- PC>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On PC>Behalf Of Nivard Ovington PC>Sent: 01 August 2011 18:46 PC>To: [email protected] PC>Subject: Re: [ANGUS] Deceased wife's sister..... PC> PC> PC>Hi Gordon & Marilyn PC> PC>I think it was the 1907 Act not that it makes any difference PC> PC>But frankly I have found many examples of it happening many years before PC>that PC> PC>The usual ploy was to marry in another Parish or town where they were not PC>known PC>

Among the benefits of belonging to a forum such as this and some others is how a relatively basic question and some simple responses can expand into a very thorough and educational discussion. I didn't ask the question but I appreciate the thought and effort going into the replies. My thanks to you all. On 8/2/2011 1:21 PM, John Hardy wrote: > Adrian Guy Etchells is quite right that the prohibition was based on the theological view (both Catholic and Protestant) that a husband and wife became 'one flesh' on marriage, and the prohibited degrees listed in Leviticus. This was a well-thought out theological position that dates back to the 13th centuryiof not earlier (and was used by Henry VIII to justify one of his divorces/annulments).Practice was another matter - as with anything else including the Ten Commandments. The interesting point is that practice varied significantly from the theological view that was incorporated into the law. Clearly most people did not regard it - or cousin marriage - as inappropriate, yet alone incest. There are very few cases where someone was prosecuted - it usually crops up in civil disputes about inheritance as a ploy to disinherit children of such a marriage as they would then be illegitimate and to justify the annulment of a marraige instead of a divorce. The repeal of the law th! at! > prohibited it was a very bitter dispute. > John > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

<<snipped>> I think it was the 1907 Act not that it makes any difference But frankly I have found many examples of it happening many years before that The usual ploy was to marry in another Parish or town where they were not known <<snipped>> I've found it happening in the same parish in the later 1800s. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceased_Wife%27s_Sister%27s_Marriage_Act_1907 which explains also that this Act permitted marriage to a deceased wife's sister, but not to a deceased husband's brother. Adrian B PS - I found a rootschat thread where Guy Etchells claims that the reason for the prohibition is that "in the eyes of the church a man and wife are one therefore a sister of one is a sister of the other" and that therefore marriage to a deceased wife's sister is equivalent to marriage to your own sister, i.e. incest. Whether or not that's true, it can't have been thought through very well because there are many cases of pairs of brothers marrying pairs of sisters. Brother 1 marries Sister 1. Brother 2 marries Sister 2. Therefore Sister 2 "is" sister of Brother 1. OK. But Sister 1 is sister of Sister 2, who is sister of Brother 1, who is brother of Brother 1. So they're all one happy family and Brother 1 married his "own" sister! Everyone still with me??? <grin>

Hello, I am returning to the list after a long absence with a new lead to track down. A cousin of mine, Marjorie Irons Methven, daughter of Thomas Erskine Methven of Broughty Ferry, married James Duncan, son of Peter Miller Duncan of Dundee in 1885. The Duncans were quite wealthy coal merchants and steamship owners and I am assuming the vessels they owned or part owned were small colliers trading in the area of the Tay estuary. The Duncans had family connections with the Irelands of Ferry Port on Craig across the river in Fifeshire. I am wondering if a history was ever written of these ships and if so where I can obtain a copy. Thanks Nick Wilson, Richmond, B.C..

Hi Gordon & Marilyn I think it was the 1907 Act not that it makes any difference But frankly I have found many examples of it happening many years before that The usual ploy was to marry in another Parish or town where they were not known The following refers to England but was I believe applicable to Scotland as well http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html#Toc115570255 Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > On 01/08/2011 08:00, Marilyn wrote: >> I have a LOT of marriages like that (in >> NewEngland) where the first wife dies and the husband, needing support for >> the children send for one of the sisters to help and one thing leads to >> another and ... 2nd marriage and baby. (Not necessarily in that order.) >> <another grin> > ** Except that in the UK, it was ILLEGAL to marry a deceased wife's > sister, until 1909. > =-O > Gordon.

On 01/08/2011 08:00, Marilyn wrote: > I have a LOT of marriages like that (in > NewEngland) where the first wife dies and the husband, needing support for > the children send for one of the sisters to help and one thing leads to > another and ... 2nd marriage and baby. (Not necessarily in that order.) > <another grin> ** Except that in the UK, it was ILLEGAL to marry a deceased wife's sister, until 1909. =-O Gordon.

As I said, perhaps we colonists were a bit more imaginative . . . ;-) More seriously, I seem to recall some prohibition in the Bible (Old Testament, I think) to that relationship and the UK laws may have taken it to heart. In rural Canada and the US, however, men and women of marrying age were often hard to find and practicality tended to take precedence - such relationships were pretty frequent. I've seen many such arrangements in my extended Nova Scotian family (all Scots and English backgrounds,) possibly more than the first-cousin marriages that were particularly common in 18th century New England. On 8/1/2011 11:00 AM, Gordon Johnson wrote: > On 01/08/2011 08:00, Marilyn wrote: >> I have a LOT of marriages like that (in >> NewEngland) where the first wife dies and the husband, needing support for >> the children send for one of the sisters to help and one thing leads to >> another and ... 2nd marriage and baby. (Not necessarily in that order.) >> <another grin> > ** Except that in the UK, it was ILLEGAL to marry a deceased wife's > sister, until 1909. > =-O > Gordon. >

really?? Well there would have been a lot more lawyers here then! Why was it considered illegal? You could marry cousins ....? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Johnson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 11:00 AM Subject: [ANGUS] Deceased wife's sister..... > On 01/08/2011 08:00, Marilyn wrote: >> I have a LOT of marriages like that (in >> NewEngland) where the first wife dies and the husband, needing support for >> the children send for one of the sisters to help and one thing leads to >> another and ... 2nd marriage and baby. (Not necessarily in that order.) >> <another grin> > ** Except that in the UK, it was ILLEGAL to marry a deceased wife's > sister, until 1909. > =-O > Gordon. > > ------------------------------- > 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

Hi Ros I think you will find the spectrum of possibilities is a wide one Think of a situation and I rather suspect it happened at some point in time Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Roslyn Macgregor <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Everyone so much. Both of the fostered children I'm looking at are > from over 100 years ago, but I expect it's going to mean anaother trip to > the UK :-) I suppose it's also possible women took in young pregnant women > and then kept the children sometimes as foster children? > Ros

Sheila Perry wrote: >I have an instance of informal adoption in my own family in the early 1920s - my granny used to take in boarders to help make ends meet. The family lived in Dunfermline and she often had temporary lodgers who were from touring shows that visited the town. One couple who were musicians used to stay with her whenever they came to the town - then they had a baby, left it with my granny while they went on touring, and never came back! As far as I know there were no formal arrangements, but the child was then looked after as part of the family, my mother's younger sister. I am not sure what records there might be of this, if any. I think my aunt tried to trace her parents at one stage in later years, but without success. > > Parts of the Poor Law continued in force until 1930, although many of its provisions had been superseded before then. I don't know whether responsibility for the care of orphaned/abandoned children was still with the Parochial Board in the 1920s, but if it did, then, even though she was presumably herself not in poverty, your granny might well have made a claim on behalf of the child, and this would have been documented in some detail. The trouble is that, even if the relevant records have survived, they will remain "closed" until 100 years after the date of the claim. Gavin Bell

Hi Wallace You are quite correct, I had limited time on my PC yesterday and ended some mails rather abruptly :-( Yes many men remarried in quick time, quite often to a widow in the local area in similar circumstances as he or even to the wifes sister Many of these arrangements appear to have worked very well with them carrying on to have more children and stay together for many years Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Wallace Fullerton <[email protected]> wrote: > Or, Nivard, they might re-marry to get a built-in babysitter.  At least > that's what they often did in the colonies but maybe we folk over here > were a bit more imaginative than back there  . . . <grin> > > On 7/31/2011 6:10 PM, Nivard Ovington wrote: >> If a man was made a widower with small children there were only a few options he had , give up work >> and beg and scrape an existance if he could or give the children up to either the Parish or other >> family members or he could pay someone to look after the child or children, often a family member >> but there were people who did it for a living

As a follow-up to what Anne wrote: >There was a separate parochial board for each parish. > > Which means you need to look for the records from the parish of the family's ordinary residence. There were complicated rules about "settlement" (ie where you were officially deemed to belong) so if they had recently moved, it can be worth checking the records of the parish that they had moved *from*. >The ones that have survived are mostly in archives. The ones for the counties of Aberdeen, Banff, Kincardine and Moray are in the City of Aberdeen Archives as far as I know. > > Correct. And there are name indexes to all of them, compiled by ANESFHS, and available both at ANESFHS and at Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Archives. >Angus Archives has some of the Angus ones, but I can't remember offhand which ones. I don't know whether the rest have survived and if so where they are. > > It is always a lottery quite which of the Parochial Board documents have survived, but it is certainly worth checking whether they have, since they often go into considerable detail of the family's circumstances. In particular, parishes were required to keep a "Children's Separate Register" which will give chapter and verse of any boarding or fostering arrangements, in cases where the orphan/illegitimate child was the subject of a formal claim under the Poor Law. Gavin Bell

I have an instance of informal adoption in my own family in the early 1920s - my granny used to take in boarders to help make ends meet. The family lived in Dunfermline and she often had temporary lodgers who were from touring shows that visited the town. One couple who were musicians used to stay with her whenever they came to the town - then they had a baby, left it with my granny while they went on touring, and never came back! As far as I know there were no formal arrangements, but the child was then looked after as part of the family, my mother's younger sister. I am not sure what records there might be of this, if any. I think my aunt tried to trace her parents at one stage in later years, but without success. best wishes, Sheila Perry (sorry this is a Fife example but I thought it might be of interest in showing how ad hoc these things could be) ________________________________ Put Yourself in the Picture: for a donation of ?50 you can help us complete our project to transform the Scottish National Portrait Gallery and have your picture shown in the new Gallery. www.nationalgalleries.org/yourpicture National Galleries of Scotland is a charity registered in Scotland No. SC003728 Registered address: 73 Belford Road, Edinburgh, EH4 3DS. VAT No. GB100190482 To be kept informed about events sign up for our email newsletter at www.nationalgalleries.org/ebulletin

Thanks Everyone so much. Both of the fostered children I'm looking at are from over 100 years ago, but I expect it's going to mean anaother trip to the UK :-) I suppose it's also possible women took in young pregnant women and then kept the children sometimes as foster children? Ros -- Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. - Martin Luther King Jr.

> Thanks, Anne. Would the parochial > board records be for each area? Held in > the archives or libray of an area? Say Brechin - or > Aberdeen? There was a separate parochial board for each parish. The ones that have survived are mostly in archives. The ones for the counties of Aberdeen, Banff, Kincardine and Moray are in the City of Aberdeen Archives as far as I know. Angus Archives has some of the Angus ones, but I can't remember offhand which ones. I don't know whether the rest have survived and if so where they are. > Some of them may have been personal arrangements, I > suppose? But perhaps > some kind of connection like a cousin or something? Yes, some would have been private arrangements. Anne

Hi Roslyn Apart from the circumstances mentioned by Anne where it was organised by the Parish often when the child was parentless There was no official system of fostering or adoption until 1930 in Scotland The majority of these foster like arrangements were done within the family, childless couples in the family or close friends would take on the child whose parents were unable to care for them for many different reasons If a man was made a widower with small children there were only a few options he had , give up work and beg and scrape an existance if he could or give the children up to either the Parish or other family members or he could pay someone to look after the child or children, often a family member but there were people who did it for a living There are some harsh tales about some of them Good luck in your search Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Hello. > > I wondered if anyone knows what the process would have been in the early > 1900's (although again with another ancestor in the 1830's) for placing an > ifant (illegitimate) in foster care with someone else to bring up? > > Two instances - Matilda Webster whose father was John Webster, and mother of > a rather prominent family - Elizabeth Largie of Benholm. Matilda's birth > doesn't seem to be registered - though there is another a few years later. I > find her in the 1841 census with a Low family along with two other little