John Skinner - can you decipher this entry please?

[WilmaM]

late at woodland of Leys

I don't think that the Late here means he has died, but rather that's where he was last known to be living.

[AndrewP]

I see the text as:

• Ann Ross at Burn of Benny had a son baptized October
  Third & named John - John Skinner in the parish of Drumoak
  late at Woodend of Leys given up as the father who refuses.

My interpretation would be that Ann Ross named John Skinner, now living in the parish of Drumoak, formerly living at Woodend of Leys (in Banchory Ternan parish), as the father and that he refuses to acknowledge that he is the father of the child.

All the best,

AndrewP

[unklee]

Does it continue with an additional line?

Frances, that was all. The next line begins a new entry - the page from Scotland's People has about a dozen baptismal entries. But I am interested in your thought (1) that John may have died (I doubt it, but it is worth considering) and (2) that he would have had to somehow "prove" he wasn't the father. I thought the benefit of the doubt would go with the woman, but perhaps John was influential/rich enough to ensure his word was believed?

[unklee]

I can’t recall seeing refuses used as such before, but the sense and context make it the obvious interpretation (to me). What you could do is cross check with the Kirk Session records (which should be in NRS). In most cases of an illegitimate child, the mother will have been “compeared” (ie interviewed) by the Kirk Session and accused of ante-nuptial fornication. She’ll be asked the identity of the father, and if she names him, he’ll be interviewed too to see what he has to say. Apart from the obvious moral guardianship aspect, the other reason was that if he admitted paternity, the Session would lean on him to make financial provision for the child (lest it fall on the church instead). So you might get a bit of background from that source. The couple will usually have been admonished (and perhaps have to sit on the naughty chair in church for a while). In this case, if my interpretation of "refuses" is correct, the mother will have named John as father but he will have denied it.

Thanks for this. I will check out NRS.

But as I said to Frances, why would the Kirk Session believe him rather than her? I guess (1) he was rich or influential, or (2) she was of known "bad reputation". Perhaps the Session records will answer this question also.

[unklee]

Thanks William and Andrew, and everyone else for your thoughts. They are all helpful.

Assuming we have reached a correct understanding of this record, the problems in identifying this couple have only just begun. Both names are reasonably common, so there are several plausible people in Kincardineshire to follow up. Their son John's death documentation in 1888 shows his parents as John Skinner (Farrier) and Ann Skinner nee Ross, both deceased, but I can find no record that they ever married, and the birth entry suggest that they didn't (you can hardly imagine he would marry her if he claimed he didn't father the child).

There are possible several John Skinners, and my best hope is that the farrier occupation will enable me to identify one of them. There are several ladies named Ann Ross, and one living on her own in the 1851 & 1861 censuses was listed as a pauper, which may be the fate of a poor unmarried mother of "bad reputation", I don't know.

Anyway, thanks everyone for assistance, it has at least enabled me to get a reasonable picture of this part of the Skinner/Ross lives.

[AndrewP]

Assuming we have reached a correct understanding of this record, the problems in identifying this couple have only just begun. Both names are reasonably common, so there are several plausible people in Kincardineshire to follow up.

Have a look at the following parish map of that area.

http://www.scotlandsfamily.com/parish-map-aberdeen.htm

As Banchory Ternan was alongside the Aberdeenshire boundary of Kincardineshire, you may have to consider some from over that boundary too.

Parts of Banchory Ternan and Drumoak parishes were across the county boundary until the county boundary was re-aligned in 1891, as a result of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889. Many parish and county boundaries were re-aligned at this time to try and do away with parishes that crossed county boundaries, and detached parts of parishes and counties. A small number of these boundary issues failed to be resolved and remained anomalous for many years after.

All the best,

AndrewP

[carolineasb]

Maybe I'm going down the wrong road, but, I take this as meaning that he didn't want the child baptised? Or could it be that he didn't want the child baptised in that particular Church?

I see that there is no note of whether the child was "lawful" or "natural" when baptised, and I would have thought that if there was any dubiety about his legitimacy then that would have been noted in the entry, or am I havering? Are the other children on the page noted as lawful or natural or any other description of their legitimacy used?

[Elwyn 1]

Thanks for this. I will check out NRS.

But as I said to Frances, why would the Kirk Session believe him rather than her? I guess (1) he was rich or influential, or (2) she was of known "bad reputation". Perhaps the Session records will answer this question also.

To give an idea of what you might find in the Kirk Session minutes, here’s an example (from my own family):

1 Nov 1829

“Compeared Charles Stewart Junr. Farrier, in town, accused by Isabel Soutar in Dundee, as being the father of her child, per an extract from the minutes of the Kirk Session of Dundee, and said extract having been read over in his hearing, he was interrogated by the Moderator if he acknowledged the charge, upon which he denied guilt with the said Isabel Souttar, and although charged by the Moderator to speak the truth, and questioned a second time, as to his guilt, he persisted in denying himself to be the father of the child laid to his charge. Sederunt closed with prayer. Geo. Whitson Moderator.”

[unklee]

Hi Andrew, that parish map is very useful, and I appreciate the background information on parish changes. I live in Australia, so this is all being done 'long distance', and there are many things that I just don't know. I can probably find out most of them on the internet, but I don't always know what to search for. I will certainly use that map.

Maybe I'm going down the wrong road, but, I take this as meaning that he didn't want the child baptised? Or could it be that he didn't want the child baptised in that particular Church?

Caroline, the baptism was in the Church of Scotland (OPR births) so I suppose John could have been Catholic (or atheist?).

I see that there is no note of whether the child was "lawful" or "natural" when baptised, and I would have thought that if there was any dubiety about his legitimacy then that would have been noted in the entry, or am I havering? Are the other children on the page noted as lawful or natural or any other description of their legitimacy used?

11 of the 14 baptisms on the page are of the same form, which is:

"xxxxx xxxxxx and his wife yyyyyy yyyyyyy (maiden name) in zzzzzzzzz (place) had a son/daughter baptised on month day, named nnnnnnn."

The remaining three are as follows:

(a) "John Milne in Drum------- (?) and Isobel Anderson had a son baptised September twelfth and named him Alexander." This is the same form, except the word "wife" is omitted - I guess that was just an omission (because there was no comment - see (c) below), but it may mean they weren't married.

(b) John Skinner & Ann Ross.

(c) "George Deans in the Parish of Strachan and Jean Smith in this parish both unmarried had a daughter baptised October seventeenth named Mary." This indicates that neither was married, to someone else or to each other, yet (presumably) they hadn't married in time to have the baby.

I'm not sure what that tells us about John & Ann. I wonder what "given up" means as well as "refused".

Thanks for your interest and help.

[paddyscar]

I read the first word in the third line as LATE and then presumed he'd passed on. Must take more care not to 'bump off' anyone sooner than their official 'departure date'

Frances