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> I would think it could at least as easily be the other way round. That is, her husband could be acknowledging that his wife was responsible for two children for which he was going also to accept responsibility. He was getting a wife, but not 'without incumbrances'. Cedric Hoptroff

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.