I think I have had the same situation but the term 'under the skirt' was not used. My case was a man who went to Jamaica as a licentiate of the College of Surgeons in Edinburgh in 1816. In 1822, he had a liaison with a woman with whom he had nine children. In 1838, he decided to return to Scotland to take his MD. He brought with him his eldest surviving son, aged 10, who was put into school in Dundee. The rest of the family, including the liaison, remained in Jamaica looking after the property. The father graduated in 1839 and returned to Jamaica late that year or very early the next having a tenth child in November 1840. The son continued at school. In 1842, by special licence, the father married the mother of his children. They had two more children, and then the whole family went to Dundee in 1847. The son became a minister in the Church of Scotland in 1856. In order to become a minister, he had to be legitimate. It would seem that the marriage in 1842, legitimized the son. Susan At 11:43 PM 4/12/2005 +0100, you wrote: > >Cedric Hoptroft wrote > > >> Brian Randell wrote (or, rather, quoted): >> <so I wonder if the usage might be something to do with accepting >> children >> from the husband's previous marriage> > >...but he added > >> I would think it could at least as easily be the other way round. > >...interesting, but in the specific case I'm looking at, the two small >children were said to be (and other evidence backs this up) the children >previously born of the couple who were now marrying each other. > >Under Scots law did their marriage actually legitimise the children, and was >keeping them 'under the skirt' some kind of social convention? > >The marriage took place in about 1843 in Ayrshire. > > > > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005 > >

In this case, if the wife was a native of Jamaica, could there have been some sort of traditional 'joining ceremony' in Jamaica, at the start of her liason with her husband, meaning that all their children would have been considered to be the local equivalent of 'legitimate' from day one, but when the family's ties to Scottish culture, ethics and laws became stronger in later years, a formal reassertion of their marriage under Scottish practice then became necessary to 'underwrite' the sincerity of their vows and thus allow the son's advancement? Did the son write any memoirs, or are there any articles (perhaps in 1856) or obituaries of the family in local newspapers? Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: SCJ Bethune [mailto:sbethune@shaw.ca] Sent: 13 April 2005 02:21 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SoG] Under the skirt... I think I have had the same situation but the term 'under the skirt' was not used. My case was a man who went to Jamaica as a licentiate of the College of Surgeons in Edinburgh in 1816. In 1822, he had a liaison with a woman with whom he had nine children. In 1838, he decided to return to Scotland to take his MD. He brought with him his eldest surviving son, aged 10, who was put into school in Dundee. The rest of the family, including the liaison, remained in Jamaica looking after the property. The father graduated in 1839 and returned to Jamaica late that year or very early the next having a tenth child in November 1840. The son continued at school. In 1842, by special licence, the father married the mother of his children. They had two more children, and then the whole family went to Dundee in 1847. The son became a minister in the Church of Scotland in 1856. In order to become a minister, he had to be legitimate. It would seem that the marriage in 1842, legitimized the son. Susan At 11:43 PM 4/12/2005 +0100, you wrote: > >Cedric Hoptroft wrote > > >> Brian Randell wrote (or, rather, quoted): >> <so I wonder if the usage might be something to do with accepting >> children >> from the husband's previous marriage> > >...but he added > >> I would think it could at least as easily be the other way round. > >...interesting, but in the specific case I'm looking at, the two small >children were said to be (and other evidence backs this up) the children >previously born of the couple who were now marrying each other. > >Under Scots law did their marriage actually legitimise the children, and was >keeping them 'under the skirt' some kind of social convention? > >The marriage took place in about 1843 in Ayrshire. > > > > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005 > > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005

Does the Scottish "marriage by repute" enter into the equation here? Chris | I think I have had the same situation but the term 'under the skirt' was | not used. | | My case was a man who went to Jamaica as a licentiate of the College of | Surgeons in Edinburgh in 1816. In 1822, he had a liaison with a woman with | whom he had nine children. In 1838, he decided to return to Scotland to | take his MD. He brought with him his eldest surviving son, aged 10, who was | put into school in Dundee. The rest of the family, including the liaison, | remained in Jamaica looking after the property. | | The father graduated in 1839 and returned to Jamaica late that year or very | early the next having a tenth child in November 1840. The son continued at | school. In 1842, by special licence, the father married the mother of his | children. They had two more children, and then the whole family went to | Dundee in 1847. | | The son became a minister in the Church of Scotland in 1856. In order to | become a minister, he had to be legitimate. It would seem that the marriage | in 1842, legitimized the son. | | Susan | | | At 11:43 PM 4/12/2005 +0100, you wrote: | > | >Cedric Hoptroft wrote | > | > | >> Brian Randell wrote (or, rather, quoted): | >> <so I wonder if the usage might be something to do with accepting | >> children | >> from the husband's previous marriage> | > | >...but he added | > | >> I would think it could at least as easily be the other way round. | > | >...interesting, but in the specific case I'm looking at, the two small | >children were said to be (and other evidence backs this up) the children | >previously born of the couple who were now marrying each other. | > | >Under Scots law did their marriage actually legitimise the children, and was | >keeping them 'under the skirt' some kind of social convention? | > | >The marriage took place in about 1843 in Ayrshire. | > | > | > | > | > | >-- | >No virus found in this incoming message. | >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. | >Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005 | > | > | | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net