http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/scots-firms-urged-to-benefit-from-ancestral-tourism-1-3021419 On the one hand the local communities are pulling in their horns in promoting Homecoming Scotland 2014 because it was supposed to have been a financial loss the last time around, but now this article in today’s Scotsman seemingly contradicts this predicting how the Scottish economy will benefit by many tourists chasing their Scottish roots. As the current buzz word goes, there seems to be a disconnect. Maisie

Thanks Pamela You are quite correct, I have been there :-) My g.g.grandfathers death is in the newspaper transcripts Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 31/07/2013 10:14, Allan/Pamela Harrow wrote: > I have no doubt you probably have, but in case not, you could try: > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nyggbs/index.htm for assistance. > > Regards > > Pamela Harrow

I have no doubt you probably have, but in case not, you could try: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nyggbs/index.htm for assistance. Regards Pamela Harrow Message: 1 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 23:40:45 +0100 From: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> Subject: [Lanark] A conundrum where did Mary ANDERSON get to ? To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi all I have long had this problem so thought I would share it with you My great great grandfather George ANDERSON b1799 Lesmahagow was a West India Merchant He was in Demerara from at least 1827 but back in the UK by around 1838 In his will he mentions a daughter born to Sarah FRASER of Demerara The only sighting I have of Mary is in the 1851 census, the SMITHs were half siblings of George ANDERSON Cathcart Book 631, ED 1 Page 4, Schedule 11 Little Aikenhead SMITH Jean Head Unm f 44 Annuitant LKS Lesmahagow SMITH Jessie Sister Unm f 35 Annuitant LKS Lesmahagow MCDONALD George Lodger Unm m 14 Scholar OVF South America SMITH Janet Visitor Wid f 66 Annuitant STI Kippen BROOKS Margaret Servant Unm f 21 House Servant STI Falkirk ANDERSON Mary Lodger Unm f 24 Annuitant OVF South America But what became of her after 1851? The SMITHs and other ANDERSON children are accounted for and no mention is found of Mary Did she return to Demerara or marry or die, all my searches so far have been fruitless

Hi again Forgive me but I read it first as meaning "Eng/Welsh" (mainly as I have been searching the probate calendars most of the day) Did you mean England/Wales or ? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 30/07/2013 17:23, Don Muirhead wrote: > Does one search for the spouse using their maiden or married surname. > > Thank you > > Don

Hi Don Invariably the married name Rarely does the wife or widow use their maiden name unlike in Scotland Perhaps on occasion after a divorce but even that is unusual until fairly recently Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 30/07/2013 17:23, Don Muirhead wrote: > Does one search for the spouse using their maiden or married surname. > > Thank you > > Don

Does one search for the spouse using their maiden or married surname. Thank you Don

Hi Nivard, I learned something about Google a couple of months ago, which recommends using the Google site of the particular country your search is in. You probably already know this, but here's what I know for Guyana (where Demerara is located) - www.google.gy If you haven't already tried it, then hopefully it might turn up something new. Best wishes, Rose On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:00 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. A conundrum where did Mary ANDERSON get to ? (Nivard Ovington) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 23:40:45 +0100 > From: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> > Subject: [Lanark] A conundrum where did Mary ANDERSON get to ? > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > >

I sympathise with Nivard in trying to track down Andersons; it must be like having your relatives with the name John Smith. My own elusive ANDERSON, is JOSEPH ANDERSON b 26/12/1890, who married a Margaret on a date unknown, and then emigrated to Canada/USA on a date unknown, but vaguely remembered as the 1920s. I've trawled shipping lists and found a potential ships barber in 1921, spent a modest fortune on ScotlandsPeople to try and find his marriage, all with no luck. The only information I have is he is on the 1930 US Census in Kings, NY. He then disappears from the family. We don't know whether he has children. He even lost touch with siblings who also emigrated to NY. Our mystery ANDERSON! -- *Edward*

Hi all I have long had this problem so thought I would share it with you My great great grandfather George ANDERSON b1799 Lesmahagow was a West India Merchant He was in Demerara from at least 1827 but back in the UK by around 1838 In his will he mentions a daughter born to Sarah FRASER of Demerara The only sighting I have of Mary is in the 1851 census, the SMITHs were half siblings of George ANDERSON Cathcart Book 631, ED 1 Page 4, Schedule 11 Little Aikenhead SMITH Jean Head Unm f 44 Annuitant LKS Lesmahagow SMITH Jessie Sister Unm f 35 Annuitant LKS Lesmahagow MCDONALD George Lodger Unm m 14 Scholar OVF South America SMITH Janet Visitor Wid f 66 Annuitant STI Kippen BROOKS Margaret Servant Unm f 21 House Servant STI Falkirk ANDERSON Mary Lodger Unm f 24 Annuitant OVF South America But what became of her after 1851? The SMITHs and other ANDERSON children are accounted for and no mention is found of Mary Did she return to Demerara or marry or die, all my searches so far have been fruitless So this is partly "to put it out there" in the hope some future researcher finds it But if anyone has any ideas on finding her I would love to know -- Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) PS also posted to Renfrew list

Hello List I am seeking information on an Elizabeth Reid born 05 Sep 1882 in Glasgow. Daughter of Alexander Reid born 1857 and Elizabeth McIntyre born 1860. Any information will be welcomed. Bob

Hi Maisie £200 was a huge sum in those days as you rightly say It was a bond paid if the details were not as stated, not paid up front *However* I will be more than a little surprised if you can find any instance where the bond was ever paid Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 24/07/2013 18:55, Maisie Egger wrote: > Thanks to those of you who commented on the ‘archaic’ wording on the > Licence to Marry Obligation. It is still a little ‘over the top’ > even by modern legal parlance! I should run it by my son-in-law, an > attorney, for his opinion. > > Apart from all else, this Marry of Obligation Licence is something. > Some researcher friends and I have never heard of such. The ‘fine’ > of £200 seems like such an unbelievable amount for those times > (1762), and would certainly be an impediment to entering into a > marriage without being on the up and up. ‘Be sure your sins will > find you out!’ > > The Borthwick Institute (York, England) archivist quickly addressed > my enquiry in a very polite manner. I have had excellent response > from them, The Mitchell Library, Glasgow and the Maryland State > Archives (USA). As records cover 1762, 1860s and 1880s, I consider > myself fortunate to have made as much headway as I have...if only I > were a better “sleuth,” however. Much credit is due those who > unstintingly offer their time and talents to help me along. > > ‘The Borthwick Institute for Archives is one of the biggest archive > repositories outside London. During our 50 year history we have > collected archives from all around the world, from the 12th century > to the present day.’ ... for more information go to the links: > > http://www.york.ac.uk/library/borthwick/about-us/ > > http://www.origins.net/help/aboutNWI-ymed-bi.aspx > > Maisie

<<For more historical background of why such a ?palaver? to get married in the 1760s, go tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753 With it all, it still didn?t get me any closer to whether I am descended from the mid-1700s ?lot? from York. There?s enough information to write book, however.>> Cynically, and a bit tongue in cheek, I suspect that lawyers needed to use "legalese" as a secret language to keep the need for their services intact. If just anyone could write a marriage contract (I know, I know, many were not at all literate to start with), why would they need the services of a Legalese specialist? (Also, were they perhaps paid by the word??? <very evil grin> That said, I'd love to read any book written by Maisie! Carole Kenney On Jul 24, 2013, at 3:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > For more historical background of why such a ?palaver? to get married in the 1760s, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753 > > With it all, it still didn?t get me any closer to whether I am descended from the mid-1700s ?lot? from York. There?s enough information to write book, however.

Thanks to those of you who commented on the ‘archaic’ wording on the Licence to Marry Obligation. It is still a little ‘over the top’ even by modern legal parlance! I should run it by my son-in-law, an attorney, for his opinion. Apart from all else, this Marry of Obligation Licence is something. Some researcher friends and I have never heard of such. The ‘fine’ of £200 seems like such an unbelievable amount for those times (1762), and would certainly be an impediment to entering into a marriage without being on the up and up. ‘Be sure your sins will find you out!’ The Borthwick Institute (York, England) archivist quickly addressed my enquiry in a very polite manner. I have had excellent response from them, The Mitchell Library, Glasgow and the Maryland State Archives (USA). As records cover 1762, 1860s and 1880s, I consider myself fortunate to have made as much headway as I have...if only I were a better “sleuth,” however. Much credit is due those who unstintingly offer their time and talents to help me along. ‘The Borthwick Institute for Archives is one of the biggest archive repositories outside London. During our 50 year history we have collected archives from all around the world, from the 12th century to the present day.’ ... for more information go to the links: http://www.york.ac.uk/library/borthwick/about-us/ http://www.origins.net/help/aboutNWI-ymed-bi.aspx Maisie

It was standard practice to state when a child was born outof wedlock, and Registrars were instructed to note when a child was illegitimate. Even the form of words ("wife of xxxx who she declares is not the father of the child", or "yyyy widow of xxx who died on the d/m/y/") was prescribed. And yes, religion has a lot to answer for. I met a relative who was almost 100 (she did survive to be 100) who was born illegitimate, and she spoke of living with the stigma of illegitimacy all her life. Anne ________________________________ From: Maisie Egger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 22 July 2013, 0:32 Subject: [Lanark] Names onbptism list 1797 Have a page of baptisms for 1797 thus: XXXX in Castle Douglas had two unlawful children baptized  4th September 1797.  Named William and Jean. On the side bar the surnames  of the spouses of the other children baptized are listed once, but the one for the ‘father?’ of the unlawful children is listed twice (once for each child, if the name is for the father, i.e.) I can’t make it out: it’s either palty or patly (and I thought even partly). ..or maybe even patty...whether lower case or capital p is hard to tell. Would this be some sort of form of record-keeping for ‘unlawful’ children, or would it be the father’s surname? Regardless, how cruel in those days to stigmatise those children as unlawful even when being baptized.  What a lot ‘religion’ has to answer for that poor wee innocent souls had to carry this label throughout their lives Maisie   ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online:  http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- 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

Maisie, I have several marriage licenses from the same period and earlier granted by the Archbishop of York. The format was popular with people of a higher social class who didn’t want all their details blurted out to the "common folk" so they were used as something of a social statement and potentially a good source of income for the church. Mark -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maisie Egger Sent: 23 July 2013 19:20 To: [email protected] Subject: [Lanark] Wording of marriage licence 1760s Be warned, this is a long one. Will future generations look back on the wording of present-day marriage certificates as archaic? It was a bit of a challenge to work my way through the language of this Marriage Licence of Obligation in the 1760s that could be for a grandfather four times removed...the operating words---could be! I have been clutching at straws as my maiden surname is very rarely found in Scotland. I set my sights on York where I found a ‘ton’ by my maiden surname when I did some sleuthing years ago. The insurmountable problem is trying to establish a connection to one of them. I am back to my great-great grandfather in south-west Scotland, then a blank. There is a strong possibility, but no proof as yet, that he could have been the illegitimate son of a busy bee who ‘pollinated’ two ‘ladies in waiting’ that we know of, one of whom took him to the Court of Session, Edinburgh, to maybe legalise the child’s name or to get money out of him. If he is also the father of yet another third child out of wedlock, this could be my great-great grandfather. To find out more about the ‘pollinator’s’ father, I contacted Borthwick Institute, York, and after paying a research fee, received a copy of a Condition of Obligation to Marry, the wording and terms of which were most interesting...and archaic: ‘Know all Men by these Presents, That we XXXX of the City of York (?) and XXXX of the Same City---paintor (sic) ________are Bound and firmly Obliged to the Right Worshipful Robert Roper Doctor of Laws, Vicar General and Official Principal of the most Reverend Father in God Robert by divine Providence Lord Archbishop of York, Primate of England, and Metropolitan, lawfully Authorized, in the Sum of Two Hundred Pounds of good and lawful Money of Great Britain, to be paid to him the said Robert Roper--------------or to his Executors, Administrators, Successors and Assigns, for the Payment whereof well and truly to be made, we oblige our selves, and each of us by our selves, for the Whole, and the Full, our Heirs, Executors and Administrators, firmly by these Presents, sealed with our Seals. Given the Sixteenth ------Day of the Month of December in the year of our LORD GOD, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty two. The Condition of this Obligation is such; That if the above bounded XXXX and XXXX, Spinster now Licenced to be married together, be neither of Consanguinity or Affinity the one to the other, within the Degrees prohibited for Marriage; If also there be no other Lett, Impediment, or lawful Cause whatsoever, but that they may be lawfully married together, both by the Laws of God and this Land: Moreover, if the Persons, whose Consent is required by Law in this Behalf, be thereunto agreeing: And lastly if the said Marriage be done and solemnized in such Manner, as in the Licence to them granted is limited: Then this Obligation to be void or else to remain in full Force and Virtue. Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of (three signatures, including the prospective groom). ....Second page.... The Sixteenth---Day of December in the Year of our LORD One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty two. ON which Day appeared personally XXXX of the parish of St. Michael of Ousebridge in the City and Diocese of York (?) and, being Sworn on the Holy Evangelists, alledged and made Oath as follows, That he is of the age of twenty Seven Years and upwards, and a Widower and intends to marry XXXX of the Same parish----aged twenty Six Years, and upwards, and a Spinster------------not knowing or believing any Let or Impediment by Reason of Consanguinity, Affinity, or any other Cause whatsoever, to hinder the said intended Marriage: And he prayed a Licence to Solemnize the said Marriage in the parish church of St. Michael aforesaid, In which said parish---------- the said XXXX further made oath. that he the said XXXX----- hath had his usual abode for the space of four weeks last past. On the same Day the said XXXX was sworn before me (signature) In the presence of me (signature of Deputy Register) --- XXXX’ ------------------------------------ This Licence of Obligation was to ensure that there was no funny business going on: possible bigamy, cousins marrying first cousins (consanguinity), incest, and other complicated restrictions to do with property, etc. If one were found to be in ‘default’ a ‘fine’ of £200 would have to be forked up, which must have been a substantial amount in the mid-1700s. Apart from all else, I have learned that the groom was a yeoman, and a widower, who at the end of the day ended up being married three times, twice in York, perhaps and once in Castle Douglas, Kirkcudbrightshire. For more historical background of why such a ‘palaver’ to get married in the 1760s, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753 With it all, it still didn’t get me any closer to whether I am descended from the mid-1700s ‘lot’ from York. There’s enough information to write book, however. Maisie ------------------------------- WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html ------------------------------- 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 Maisie That is more or less a standard marriage licence as opposed to posting Banns <https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Marriage_Allegations,_Bonds_and_Licences_in_England_and_Wales> I suspect the main problem future researchers will face, is not the wording, although the political correctness may confuse, no the problem will be finding *any* marriage at all, as more seem not to bother with any form of marriage as such these days Not to mention the variety of fathers of one ladies children in some cases It will make the mid 1700's seem relatively straight forward by comparison Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 23/07/2013 19:19, Maisie Egger wrote: > Be warned, this is a long one. > > Will future generations look back on the wording of present-day > marriage certificates as archaic? It was a bit of a challenge to > work my way through the language of this Marriage Licence of > Obligation in the 1760s that could be for a grandfather four times > removed...the operating words---could be!

Maisie, it is a legal contract and reads no differently than most modern legal contracts. Even the seemingly archaic English would be read by a modern day lawyer with easy comprehension. Just take a look at any insurance policy or warranty document that you possess. You will see the similarities. I believe that a thousand years from now, legal documents will still be using the same type of language. The difference today is that marriage is no longer considered a contract. It stopped being that with the arrival of "no-fault" divorce, as an agreement that can be broken at will with no penalties is not a contract. As for the proliferation of "out-of-wedlock" childbirth, that is mainly due to the modern assumption that the cost of raising such a child will automatically be assumed by the government without the direct impact on the local community of the past. When it's all rolled into the general taxes instead of being a direct levy on the local church or village, the peer pressure to behave is gone. Jo-Ann Croft On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Maisie Egger <[email protected]>wrote: > Will future generations look back on the wording of present-day marriage > certificates as archaic? It was a bit of a challenge to work my way > through the language of this Marriage Licence of Obligation in the 1760s > that could be for a grandfather four times removed...the operating > words---could be! > > >

Be warned, this is a long one. Will future generations look back on the wording of present-day marriage certificates as archaic? It was a bit of a challenge to work my way through the language of this Marriage Licence of Obligation in the 1760s that could be for a grandfather four times removed...the operating words---could be! I have been clutching at straws as my maiden surname is very rarely found in Scotland. I set my sights on York where I found a ‘ton’ by my maiden surname when I did some sleuthing years ago. The insurmountable problem is trying to establish a connection to one of them. I am back to my great-great grandfather in south-west Scotland, then a blank. There is a strong possibility, but no proof as yet, that he could have been the illegitimate son of a busy bee who ‘pollinated’ two ‘ladies in waiting’ that we know of, one of whom took him to the Court of Session, Edinburgh, to maybe legalise the child’s name or to get money out of him. If he is also the father of yet another third child out of wedlock, this could be my great-great grandfather. To find out more about the ‘pollinator’s’ father, I contacted Borthwick Institute, York, and after paying a research fee, received a copy of a Condition of Obligation to Marry, the wording and terms of which were most interesting...and archaic: ‘Know all Men by these Presents, That we XXXX of the City of York (?) and XXXX of the Same City---paintor (sic) ________are Bound and firmly Obliged to the Right Worshipful Robert Roper Doctor of Laws, Vicar General and Official Principal of the most Reverend Father in God Robert by divine Providence Lord Archbishop of York, Primate of England, and Metropolitan, lawfully Authorized, in the Sum of Two Hundred Pounds of good and lawful Money of Great Britain, to be paid to him the said Robert Roper--------------or to his Executors, Administrators, Successors and Assigns, for the Payment whereof well and truly to be made, we oblige our selves, and each of us by our selves, for the Whole, and the Full, our Heirs, Executors and Administrators, firmly by these Presents, sealed with our Seals. Given the Sixteenth ------Day of the Month of December in the year of our LORD GOD, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty two. The Condition of this Obligation is such; That if the above bounded XXXX and XXXX, Spinster now Licenced to be married together, be neither of Consanguinity or Affinity the one to the other, within the Degrees prohibited for Marriage; If also there be no other Lett, Impediment, or lawful Cause whatsoever, but that they may be lawfully married together, both by the Laws of God and this Land: Moreover, if the Persons, whose Consent is required by Law in this Behalf, be thereunto agreeing: And lastly if the said Marriage be done and solemnized in such Manner, as in the Licence to them granted is limited: Then this Obligation to be void or else to remain in full Force and Virtue. Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of (three signatures, including the prospective groom). ....Second page.... The Sixteenth---Day of December in the Year of our LORD One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty two. ON which Day appeared personally XXXX of the parish of St. Michael of Ousebridge in the City and Diocese of York (?) and, being Sworn on the Holy Evangelists, alledged and made Oath as follows, That he is of the age of twenty Seven Years and upwards, and a Widower and intends to marry XXXX of the Same parish----aged twenty Six Years, and upwards, and a Spinster------------not knowing or believing any Let or Impediment by Reason of Consanguinity, Affinity, or any other Cause whatsoever, to hinder the said intended Marriage: And he prayed a Licence to Solemnize the said Marriage in the parish church of St. Michael aforesaid, In which said parish---------- the said XXXX further made oath. that he the said XXXX----- hath had his usual abode for the space of four weeks last past. On the same Day the said XXXX was sworn before me (signature) In the presence of me (signature of Deputy Register) --- XXXX’ ------------------------------------ This Licence of Obligation was to ensure that there was no funny business going on: possible bigamy, cousins marrying first cousins (consanguinity), incest, and other complicated restrictions to do with property, etc. If one were found to be in ‘default’ a ‘fine’ of £200 would have to be forked up, which must have been a substantial amount in the mid-1700s. Apart from all else, I have learned that the groom was a yeoman, and a widower, who at the end of the day ended up being married three times, twice in York, perhaps and once in Castle Douglas, Kirkcudbrightshire. For more historical background of why such a ‘palaver’ to get married in the 1760s, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753 With it all, it still didn’t get me any closer to whether I am descended from the mid-1700s ‘lot’ from York. There’s enough information to write book, however. Maisie

This woman likely gave the child her maiden name as the man? that raped or violated her was a Criminal in her eyes. On Mon 22/07/13 3:01 AM , [email protected] sent: > > > > > PLEASE NOTE > > > > When replying to a digest message, please quote only the specific portion > or message to which you are replying, removing the rest of the digest from > your reply. Also, remember to change the subject of your reply so that it > coincides with the message subject to which you are replying. > > > ------------------------------- > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Names onbptism list 1797 (Maisie Egger) > > 2. Re: Names onbptism list 1797 (E.Ross) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:32:01 -0700 > > From: "Maisie Egger" ca > [email protected]> > Subject: [Lanark] Names onbptism list 1797 > > To: [email protected] > otsweb.com> > Message-ID: [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Have a page of baptisms for 1797 thus: > > > > XXXX in Castle Douglas had two unlawful children baptized 4th September > 1797. Named William and Jean. > > > On the side bar the surnames of the spouses of the other children baptized > are listed once, but the one for the ?father?? of the unlawful children is > listed twice (once for each child, if the name is for the father, i.e.) > > > I can?t make it out: it?s either palty or patly (and I thought even > partly). ..or maybe even patty...whether lower case or capital p is hard to > tell. > > > Would this be some sort of form of record-keeping for ?unlawful? children, > or would it be the father?s surname? > > > Regardless, how cruel in those days to stigmatise those children as > unlawful even when being baptized. What a lot ?religion? has to answer for > that poor wee innocent souls had to carry this label throughout their lives > > > Maisie > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:21:56 +1000 > > From: "E.Ross" eb > [email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Lanark] Names onbptism list 1797 > > To: Maisie Egger ca > [email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected] > otsweb.com>" [email protected] > otsweb.com> > Message-ID: [email protected] > u> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > > > > > Hi Maisie > > Not only "religion" stigmatised children. I have an in-law born 100 years > later than the ones you are writing about. She was born in 1897 to a poor > widow woman, a washerwoman with 3 legitimate children. > > > On the wee one's birth certificate it is clearly stated that the mother was > the widow of a man killed in a pit accident 3 years previously. The child > was registered in the mother's maiden name. I was given this certificate > otherwise I'm sure I'd never have turned it up. > > > Regards > > Ella > > > > > > Regardless, how cruel in those days to stigmatise those > children as unlawful even when being baptized. What a lot ?religion? has > to answer for that poor wee innocent souls had to carry this label > throughout their lives > > > > > Maisie > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of > the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > otsweb.com. > > > > > You may contact the List Admin at lan > [email protected] or click on the following link to the list > information page online: > > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > L > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > To contact the LANARK list administrator, send an email to > > LAN > [email protected] > > > To post a message to the LANARK mailing list, send an email to [email protected] > otsweb.com. > > > __________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to L > [email protected] > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the > email with no additional text. > > > > > > End of LANARK Digest, Vol 8, Issue 122 > > ************************************** > > > > > >

> Hi Maisie Not only "religion" stigmatised children. I have an in-law born 100 years later than the ones you are writing about. She was born in 1897 to a poor widow woman, a washerwoman with 3 legitimate children. On the wee one's birth certificate it is clearly stated that the mother was the widow of a man killed in a pit accident 3 years previously. The child was registered in the mother's maiden name. I was given this certificate otherwise I'm sure I'd never have turned it up. Regards Ella > > Regardless, how cruel in those days to stigmatise those children as unlawful even when being baptized. What a lot ‘religion’ has to answer for that poor wee innocent souls had to carry this label throughout their lives > > Maisie > > ------------------------------- > > WHEN REPLYING to a post please remember to snip most of the earlier message. Be sure the reply to address shows as [email protected] > > You may contact the List Admin at [email protected] or click on the following link to the list information page online: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/intl/SCT/LANARK.html > > ------------------------------- > 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 >