Now here's another one on my "Upstairs Downstairs---Downton Abbey" housekeeper "soap opera" that needs a little thinking about. On her birth certificate in 1852 it indicates that she is the NATURAL daughter of this 48-year-old tenant farmer in Kirkcudbrightshire. (He was never married, so he was also likely otherwise busy farming between 300-600 acres which may have belonged to the Earl of Selkirk!). However, the birth of two males on the same page are recorded as ILLEGITIMATE sons to other unmarried couples in the same area of Rerrick, KKB.. Was there a reason why the female is recorded as the NATURAL daughter, but males are shown as ILLEGITIMATE? Had the authorities become "sensitive" to stigmatising girls this way, even back in 1852? Were females more likely to suffer the consequences of being born under such circumstances than males? On other documents I have there is no hesitation in labeling female and male children illegitimate on the birth certs. The "natural" born child went on to climb the domestic servant ladder by becoming a housekeeper in some very impressive homes in Lancashire, but somehow ended up in Croydon, Surrey, presumably in a less modest place than a "Downton Abbey." The coroner's inquest two days after her death at the age of 50 indicated that she fractured her skull from an accidental fall. Her son, also born out of wedlock (can't find who his father was, and whether he was "seeded" in Scotland or England is unknown), was taken care of by an aunt in the little village in Southwest Scotland where his mother came from, until he was maybe 16, and then he moved to England, presumably to be reunited with his mother. We do not know how this aunt supported him, but apparently the Kirk Session records will be available on Scotlandspeople this year, so more hunting to fill in more gaps, maybe. These are the events of which t.v. "soap operas" are created. If only I could write! Maisie