Hi all A couple of weeks ago, in fun (put it down to the winter blahs!) I asked a hypothetical question: "The couple had a good marriage - but it was a confirmed common law union. They lived together for 42 years. Are their children illegitimate?" I had no specific family in mind but wondered how the list would consider these circumstances. There were dozens of responses, some quite detailed. Unfortunately I didn't state a time frame or specific country but nonetheless, the responses were quite interesting. A couple were lengthy and one in particular very informative and I've asked its writer to forward it to the list. Interestingly enough less than 25% stated firmly that the children were illegitimate without question - that means that 75% were undecided. Thank you to all who shared their comments and insight. A couple of you have really off beat humour - thanks for making me laugh too. What started out as a fun question turned into one requiring deep thought. I'm sure a huge book could be written on this topic so it will be somewhat inadequate to try to cover it all in this format but I'll try to cover part of it - no doubt missing far too much too. There are 2 ways to consider illegitimacy - a child born without any marriage of any kind and a child born within a union that is not recognized as traditional marriage and therefore deemed illegal. First consider the child born without any marriage...in the OPRs, this child is indicated as "illegitimate" with the mother noted but no father indicated. In Ted Larson's transcriptions of Islay births for the period to 1855, there were 418 children listed without fathers. What was life like for these children - and for their mothers? I sadly noted the number of illegitimate children who died in infancy when examining Ted's death transcriptions (see posts in Sept and Oct 2002) - some had reasons of death like scarletina noted and other had "unknown" as the reason of death but I do wonder if these children were "allowed" to die. The second kind of illegitimate child - one born within a union not recognized as a legal marriage....first we need to know the various kinds of marriages that have been in Scotland. (Note: Art Hunter posted a detailed email on marriage Scottish law Oct 5, 2000 that is definitely worth re-reading and I have 'lifted' some of the content to include here) 1) Taken from "Life in Scotland A Hundred Years Ago" by James Murray, as reflected in the Old Statistical Accounts: "A fair was held annually...at that place it was the custom of the unmarried persons of both sexes to choose a companion according to their liking, with whom they were to live till that time, next year. This was called 'hand fasting', or hand in fist. If they were pleased with each other at that time, then they continued together in life; if not, they separated and were free to make another choice. The fruit of this connection, if any, was always attached to the disaffected person". 2) Marriage by banns: banns were called three consecutive Sundays at Church. After the third calling, without ceremony necessary, they were consider married (Paul Smart, Bishop, LDS Utah, conference speaker 1995). As we see in the OPRs, if the bride and groom were from different parishes, the bans were called in each of their parishes. 3) Only wealthier people or people of consequence/standing were married by license (Paul Smart, 1995). 4) Marriage of Declaration: both parties declared that they accepted one another as husband and wife (probably similar to #1) 5) Marriage by Habit and Repute - if 2 persons in respect of whom there is no legal impediment to marriage, live together and behave towards each other in public as though they are husband and wife, then it can be held that that a marriage has been established. 6) Runaway or 'Gretna Green' marriages. Involved English participants crossing over to Scotland where marriage laws were much more lax and isn't a focus for Islay marriages. 7) undocumented marriages. I recall a discussion with list members (live or online I cannot remember - Toni Sinclair - do you remember?) that there were times when fees were charged by the clerics to document a marriage (or birth or death) in the parish records. How often did this happen....the banns were read but the fees were beyond their means so while they were legally married, it was not documented. The children born to this union would be known as legitimate at that time, but the researcher many generations ahead might consider the children illegitimate because the marriage documentation isn't found. So now we consider the children born to the above various kinds of unions. Are they illegitimate? According to Webster's Dictionary, marriage means 1) the state of being married; 2) the mutual relation of husband and wife; 3) the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. According to the same dictionary, illegitimate means: 1) not recognized as lawful offspring; 2) born of parents not married to each other. The answer to my question about illegitimacy is as individual as how each of us interprets "marriage". Personally I don't believe there is a black-and-white, one-size-fits-all answer. Cheerio Sue Visser

Hi Sue As mentioned in your para 7, I think this might be the answer. "One reason you may not find birth/ baptism records could be due to the Stamp Act of 1783 which imposed a tax of 3d on every entry of a birth/baptism, marriage and burial. Although this Act was repealed in 1794 it did have the effect of deterring people from registering births, marriages and deaths for about 10 years." Best wishes James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sue V" <genealgal2@execulink.com> To: <SCT-ISLAY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:20 PM Subject: "the other side of the blanket" > Hi all > > A couple of weeks ago, in fun (put it down to the winter blahs!) I asked a > hypothetical question: "The couple had a good marriage - but it was a > confirmed common law union. They lived together for 42 years. Are their > children illegitimate?" I had no specific family in mind but wondered how > the list would consider these circumstances. There were dozens of > responses, some quite detailed. Unfortunately I didn't state a time > frame or specific country but nonetheless, the responses were quite > interesting. A couple were lengthy and one in particular very informative > and I've asked its writer to forward it to the list. Interestingly enough > less than 25% stated firmly that the children were illegitimate without > question - that means that 75% were undecided. > > Thank you to all who shared their comments and insight. A couple of you > have really off beat humour - thanks for making me laugh too. What > started out as a fun question turned into one requiring deep thought. I'm > sure a huge book could be written on this topic so it will be somewhat > inadequate to try to cover it all in this format but I'll try to cover > part of it - no doubt missing far too much too. > > There are 2 ways to consider illegitimacy - a child born without any > marriage of any kind and a child born within a union that is not > recognized as traditional marriage and therefore deemed illegal. > > First consider the child born without any marriage...in the OPRs, this > child is indicated as "illegitimate" with the mother noted but no father > indicated. In Ted Larson's transcriptions of Islay births for the period > to 1855, there were 418 children listed without fathers. What was life > like for these children - and for their mothers? I sadly noted the number > of illegitimate children who died in infancy when examining Ted's death > transcriptions (see posts in Sept and Oct 2002) - some had reasons of > death like scarletina noted and other had "unknown" as the reason of death > but I do wonder if these children were "allowed" to die. > > The second kind of illegitimate child - one born within a union not > recognized as a legal marriage....first we need to know the various kinds > of marriages that have been in Scotland. (Note: Art Hunter posted a > detailed email on marriage Scottish law Oct 5, 2000 that is definitely > worth re-reading and I have 'lifted' some of the content to include here) > > 1) Taken from "Life in Scotland A Hundred Years Ago" by James Murray, as > reflected in the Old Statistical Accounts: "A fair was held annually...at > that place it was the custom of the unmarried persons of both sexes to > choose a companion according to their liking, with whom they were to live > till that time, next year. This was called 'hand fasting', or hand in > fist. If they were pleased with each other at that time, then they > continued together in life; if not, they separated and were free to make > another choice. The fruit of this connection, if any, was always attached > to the disaffected person". > > 2) Marriage by banns: banns were called three consecutive Sundays at > Church. After the third calling, without ceremony necessary, they were > consider married (Paul Smart, Bishop, LDS Utah, conference speaker 1995). > As we see in the OPRs, if the bride and groom were from different > parishes, the bans were called in each of their parishes. > > 3) Only wealthier people or people of consequence/standing were married > by license (Paul Smart, 1995). > > 4) Marriage of Declaration: both parties declared that they accepted one > another as husband and wife (probably similar to #1) > > 5) Marriage by Habit and Repute - if 2 persons in respect of whom there > is no legal impediment to marriage, live together and behave towards each > other in public as though they are husband and wife, then it can be held > that that a marriage has been established. > > 6) Runaway or 'Gretna Green' marriages. Involved English participants > crossing over to Scotland where marriage laws were much more lax and isn't > a focus for Islay marriages. > > 7) undocumented marriages. I recall a discussion with list members (live > or online I cannot remember - Toni Sinclair - do you remember?) that there > were times when fees were charged by the clerics to document a marriage > (or birth or death) in the parish records. How often did this > happen....the banns were read but the fees were beyond their means so > while they were legally married, it was not documented. The children > born to this union would be known as legitimate at that time, but the > researcher many generations ahead might consider the children illegitimate > because the marriage documentation isn't found. > > So now we consider the children born to the above various kinds of unions. > Are they illegitimate? According to Webster's Dictionary, marriage means > 1) the state of being married; 2) the mutual relation of husband and wife; > 3) the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of > social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a > family. According to the same dictionary, illegitimate means: 1) not > recognized as lawful offspring; 2) born of parents not married to each > other. The answer to my question about illegitimacy is as individual as > how each of us interprets "marriage". Personally I don't believe there is > a black-and-white, one-size-fits-all answer. > > Cheerio > Sue Visser > > > ______________________________

Thanks James! ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Maxwell" <James.Maxwell@tesco.net> To: <SCT-ISLAY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:16 AM Subject: [SCT-ISLAY] Re: "the other side of the blanket" Hi Sue As mentioned in your para 7, I think this might be the answer. "One reason you may not find birth/ baptism records could be due to the Stamp Act of 1783 which imposed a tax of 3d on every entry of a birth/baptism, marriage and burial. Although this Act was repealed in 1794 it did have the effect of deterring people from registering births, marriages and deaths for about 10 years." Best wishes James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sue V" <genealgal2@execulink.com> To: <SCT-ISLAY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:20 PM Subject: "the other side of the blanket" > Hi all > > A couple of weeks ago, in fun (put it down to the winter blahs!) I asked a > hypothetical question: "The couple had a good marriage - but it was a > confirmed common law union. They lived together for 42 years. Are their > children illegitimate?" I had no specific family in mind but wondered how > the list would consider these circumstances. There were dozens of > responses, some quite detailed. Unfortunately I didn't state a time > frame or specific country but nonetheless, the responses were quite > interesting. A couple were lengthy and one in particular very informative > and I've asked its writer to forward it to the list. Interestingly enough > less than 25% stated firmly that the children were illegitimate without > question - that means that 75% were undecided. > > Thank you to all who shared their comments and insight. A couple of you > have really off beat humour - thanks for making me laugh too. What > started out as a fun question turned into one requiring deep thought. I'm > sure a huge book could be written on this topic so it will be somewhat > inadequate to try to cover it all in this format but I'll try to cover > part of it - no doubt missing far too much too. > > There are 2 ways to consider illegitimacy - a child born without any > marriage of any kind and a child born within a union that is not > recognized as traditional marriage and therefore deemed illegal. > > First consider the child born without any marriage...in the OPRs, this > child is indicated as "illegitimate" with the mother noted but no father > indicated. In Ted Larson's transcriptions of Islay births for the period > to 1855, there were 418 children listed without fathers. What was life > like for these children - and for their mothers? I sadly noted the number > of illegitimate children who died in infancy when examining Ted's death > transcriptions (see posts in Sept and Oct 2002) - some had reasons of > death like scarletina noted and other had "unknown" as the reason of death > but I do wonder if these children were "allowed" to die. > > The second kind of illegitimate child - one born within a union not > recognized as a legal marriage....first we need to know the various kinds > of marriages that have been in Scotland. (Note: Art Hunter posted a > detailed email on marriage Scottish law Oct 5, 2000 that is definitely > worth re-reading and I have 'lifted' some of the content to include here) > > 1) Taken from "Life in Scotland A Hundred Years Ago" by James Murray, as > reflected in the Old Statistical Accounts: "A fair was held annually...at > that place it was the custom of the unmarried persons of both sexes to > choose a companion according to their liking, with whom they were to live > till that time, next year. This was called 'hand fasting', or hand in > fist. If they were pleased with each other at that time, then they > continued together in life; if not, they separated and were free to make > another choice. The fruit of this connection, if any, was always attached > to the disaffected person". > > 2) Marriage by banns: banns were called three consecutive Sundays at > Church. After the third calling, without ceremony necessary, they were > consider married (Paul Smart, Bishop, LDS Utah, conference speaker 1995). > As we see in the OPRs, if the bride and groom were from different > parishes, the bans were called in each of their parishes. > > 3) Only wealthier people or people of consequence/standing were married > by license (Paul Smart, 1995). > > 4) Marriage of Declaration: both parties declared that they accepted one > another as husband and wife (probably similar to #1) > > 5) Marriage by Habit and Repute - if 2 persons in respect of whom there > is no legal impediment to marriage, live together and behave towards each > other in public as though they are husband and wife, then it can be held > that that a marriage has been established. > > 6) Runaway or 'Gretna Green' marriages. Involved English participants > crossing over to Scotland where marriage laws were much more lax and isn't > a focus for Islay marriages. > > 7) undocumented marriages. I recall a discussion with list members (live > or online I cannot remember - Toni Sinclair - do you remember?) that there > were times when fees were charged by the clerics to document a marriage > (or birth or death) in the parish records. How often did this > happen....the banns were read but the fees were beyond their means so > while they were legally married, it was not documented. The children > born to this union would be known as legitimate at that time, but the > researcher many generations ahead might consider the children illegitimate > because the marriage documentation isn't found. > > So now we consider the children born to the above various kinds of unions. > Are they illegitimate? According to Webster's Dictionary, marriage means > 1) the state of being married; 2) the mutual relation of husband and wife; > 3) the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of > social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a > family. According to the same dictionary, illegitimate means: 1) not > recognized as lawful offspring; 2) born of parents not married to each > other. The answer to my question about illegitimacy is as individual as > how each of us interprets "marriage". Personally I don't believe there is > a black-and-white, one-size-fits-all answer. > > Cheerio > Sue Visser > > > ______________________________ ==== SCT-ISLAY Mailing List ==== To visit the website associated with this project, visit: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~steve/islay/data.htm __________ NOD32 1.1373 (20060120) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __________ NOD32 1.1373 (20060120) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com