Birth certificate.....

garibaldired · Post by **garibaldired** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:02 pm

Hi everyone,

I've uploaded an image of a birth certificate (of one of my Harpers) to the gallery (I hope!).
I just needed to share it with people who would understand. I have never seen anything like this before. Did this often appear? And how embarrassing to have that on your birth certificate. Also it's surprising that the marriage did seem to last and they did have children together. However it's perhaps no wonder that I have been unable to find Jane on the 1881 census. She's not with her husband anyway!

http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... p?pos=-407

Meg

Gallery URL added - AndrewP

Post by **AndrewP** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:05 pm

Hi Meg,

My understanding is that the husband of a mother is assumed to be the child's father unless declared otherwise. And in this case declared in the most 'direct' words.

All the best,

Andrew Paterson

pinkshoes · Post by **pinkshoes** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:57 pm

Don't know why they beat about the bush like that - tell it like it is, for goodness sake

Talk about the sins of the fathers (and mothers!) - poor wee Frederick had that to cart around with him all his days.

An amazing certificate Meg - thank you for sharing.

Best wishes

Pinkshoes

Post by **Ina** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:00 pm

Hi Meg,

I have a birth certificate just like that for one of my ancestors. DWW couldn't believe me when I told him about it, I actually had to send him a copy. I thought the Scottish law was that if you were married the husband was assumed to be the father.

In my case this illigitimate child used the name of her mother's husband on her birth and death record. Guess she was never told he wasn't her father.

Regards,
Ina
Current AG Chair

Post by **joette** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:11 pm

Looks like he wasn't going to be named as the Father or she wanted no doubt that he was not the Father.She is also asserting that they had sexual relations before their marriage JUST not in time for him to have fathered the child! As they say "pure Beamer" for Frederick imagine producing that when you start school,apprenticeship etc.
I think even today most people would be

by such frank details of their sex life!

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:21 pm

Hi Meg
It is certainly an interesting situation. Makes you wonder what the story behind it was.
.. perhaps realising she was "in a spot of trouble", Mr Downie very kindly offered to marry her. But you can't help thinking it couldn't have been a very good start to the marriage.... and why own up at all to the child's parentage if she was now an "honest woman"? I doubt anyone would have worried too much about an obvious bit of pre-marital fun, which they'd clearly been up to anyway according to her version of events. Odd.

Best wishes
Lesley

garibaldired · Post by **garibaldired** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:28 pm

Yes, quite, as you say Joette!

The whole situation is pretty intriguing. Frederick was her THIRD illegitimate child so perhaps there was no reputation to save?
And I can't find Jane on the 1881 census at all - she doesn't appear in her husband's household or at the family home or anywhere in fact. By 1891 she has 2 children by Mr Downie and 2 of her other sons living with them.
An interesting household!

Meg

WilmaM · Post by **WilmaM** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:38 pm

joette wrote: As they say "pure Beamer" for Frederick imagine producing that when you start school,apprenticeship etc.

Question

would all that information actually BE on the birth cerificate extract that the mother had for that child ?

It wouldn't appear on the free short form we get now, but would it be on the equivilent full copy ?

Or was it just kept in the registrar's book ?

Post by **Anne H** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:32 am

WilmaM wrote:would all that information actually BE on the birth cerificate extract that the mother had for that child ?

It wouldn't appear on the free short form we get now, but would it be on the equivilent full copy ?

Or was it just kept in the registrar's book ?

It probably was on the actual BC. My great granny had seven more children with the same man after parting ways with great grandad in 1889. A similar type statement is written on each of the BC's of the children but in these cases, both mother and father signed as informants.

I understand from the daughter of one of those children that her mother cut out that particular wording from her BC because of embarrassment, but she was happy when I told her that her granny and grandad at least finally married 23 years later. (Maybe waiting for first husband (my gr grandad) to die or proof of death...and I still can't find my great grandad anywhere!

Regards,
AnneH

MaryB · Post by **MaryB** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:59 pm

I have 3 birth certs like that (2 on my own side 1 on hubby's side) makes interesting reading