"Poor" Ellison Laird and Margaret Crosgrove

Lorna Allison · Post by **Lorna Allison** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:33 pm

I picked up corrections for two illegitimate birth entries and see that, in both, the woman is referred to as "Poor". Does this mean that she is being exonerated for the illegitimacy and therefore the birth may not have been due to a consensual act?

I don't think it means indigent/impoverished. Would welcome enlightenment.

Lorna

Russell · Post by **Russell** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:15 pm

Hi Lorna

I can't say I have seen that sort of descriptor used on an entry but have seen it applied in a different context. - When a person was less well endowed intellectually rather than call them simple I have seen the desriptor 'a poor soul' being used.
There appears to have been great variance over both time and place in the way a parish or their minister acknowledged illigitimacy. Some places made less of a fuss than others.
Despite the Scots Law contractual basis of marriage which would indicate equality I don't think it could ever have been described as an agreement between equals.
Relations outside of marriage often appear to have been condoned depending on your (the males) position in society. The Kirk Session were the people responsible for dealing with miscreants but I think some 'were more equal than others' !

Russell

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:04 am

Lorna

I have heard of that terminology being used regarding an illegitimate birth, but do not know the reason why. Recently my Dad got some notes for me from RCEs when he was down in Edinburgh. My gg uncle David Bruce married Maggie Adam in 1904, 2 years after she had had a daughter by someone else. There had already been a case started in court before they married, but it was continued and seemed to drag on for very many years, it was not until 1914 that an outcome was given regarding the daughters father, and he was then named on her death certificate when she died the following year from scarlet fever aged 13.
The document naming the reputed father began by stating that Poor Mrs Maggie Bruce or Adam wished that her daughter's father be named as James Ewen etc. etc. This was in Stonehaven (Fetteresso).

Susan.

Lorna Allison · Post by **Lorna Allison** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:53 pm

Thank you Russell and Susan

I don't think Ellison anyway was "learning disabled" as she went on to marry a chap who had lost his wife but did not have any children who needed looking after and then they had a child of their own together.

Certainly these two ladies would not have received any special treatment because of a good social position either! (I am sure that did go on Russell, some things never change).

Possibly my best bet would be to try to find some legal beagle with an interest in antiquity who might throw some light on the use of the word "poor" in this context.

Thanks again

Lorna

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:44 pm

Lorna Allison wrote:I picked up corrections for two illegitimate birth entries and see that, in both, the woman is referred to as "Poor". Does this mean that she is being exonerated for the illegitimacy and therefore the birth may not have been due to a consensual act?

I don't think it means indigent/impoverished. Would welcome enlightenment.

Lorna

Lorna

I'm fascinated.

Any chance that yuo can post images here?

David

Lorna Allison · Post by **Lorna Allison** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:48 am

Mmmm Yes David, I can try. Was just saying to myself today that I would never attempt the Gallery

I'll try it tomorrow. Off to bed - probably to have nightmares

Bye now

Lorna

Lorna Allison · Post by **Lorna Allison** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:42 am

Well, that was then - this is now

Decided a bit more pioneering spirit was in order and bed could wait.

The first one (Ellison Laird) went off with no title, no description and sideyways on. I am blaming the Edinburgh folk for the latter! The second one (Margaret Crossgrove) should be better.

http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1065

http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1066

Hope they get through. No doubt hear tomorrow.

Thanks for your interest and thank you Lesley for your instructions.

Lorna

Gallery url's added by Marilyn

Post by **AndrewP** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:39 am

Hi Lorna,

I have seen this once before on a paternity RCE, where the mother was described as poor. My guess is that it may have othewise have given an occuppation, but rather than having a job, she was on Poor Relief. Any thoughts on that theory?

All the best,

AndrewP

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:18 am

Peculiar!

What throws me is the capital letter in "Poor" .................

Had they been receiving Poor Relief, then I'd have expected a comment something along the lines of "....currently in receipt of poor relief, ...etc....." but not to have "Poor" added on as if it was an additional given name.

Just had a look at the draft Schedule F in Bisset-Smith's 1907 "Vital Registration - A Manual of the Law and Practice", and these RCEs match the requirements.

For these two to be called "Poor Ellison Laird" and "Poor Margaret Crossgrove" they must have appeared that way in the respective Sheriff Court actions, - as the Pursuer. There's no way that the registrar would add the "Poor".

David

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:44 am

Hi Lorna
Fascinating images there... and glad the instructions were of some help.

Best wishes
Lesley

TalkingScot.com

"Poor" Ellison Laird and Margaret Crosgrove

"Poor" Ellison Laird and Margaret Crosgrove

Re: "Poor" Ellison Laird and Margaret Crosgrove