Confusion and Duplication!

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:03 am

Hi Injess

"... both in the parish gave up their names

That is pretty standard language - they gave in their names, so following that the banns would need to be proclaimed three times before the marriage could take place.

I take it you have checked the dates carefully and there are no mistranscriptions?

Guessing here, but perhaps they did intend to marry shortly after the first giving in of names, but something happened...someone was ill, someone died...some other major event which stopped things in its tracks??

The Alloa one states "... both in the parish gave up their names", and the Eastwood one states "... both in this parrish (sic) gave up their names for proclamation (abbreviated) in order to marriage".

What is interesting is that the couple seem to have moved parishes inbetween; usually when there are two parishes in the OPRs the usual pattern is that the bride comes from one parish and the groom from the other. Maybe they were going to marry frst time around, but the man lost his job (so did not have money to support a wife) and they had to move to the other parish to find work, and once he had secured some income again, they decided to finally tie the knot? Or maybe there was such an almighty falling out with the Kirk Session in Alloa that they felt they had to move? I'd be off to the check the Kirk Session records just incase!!

Best wishes
Lesley

Lorna Allison · Post by **Lorna Allison** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:19 pm

Not to interrupt the post but, since the topic has come up, am I within my rights to assume that a baby born end Sep 1871 and registered with mother's surname, is the son of the man who married his mother in the following February - given that he has this man's first name and took his surname but retaining his mother's maiden name as his middle name? I do hope so, or mountains of research are worthless.

Oh and since it hasn't been mentioned yet, the Eastwood parish I know, is just outwith the southern boundary of Glasgow after Cathcart.

Regards

Lorna

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:50 pm

Hi Lorna

Not to interrupt the post but, since the topic has come up, am I within my rights to assume that a baby born end Sep 1871 and registered with mother's surname, is the son of the man who married his mother in the following February - given that he has this man's first name and took his surname but retaining his mother's maiden name as his middle name? I do hope so, or mountains of research are worthless.

I'm guessing the father is not mentioned on the birth entry?

I'm not sure that you could ever be 100% sure...e.g. if the child's first name was John you'd be inclined to be less sure about it than if the child's first name was Ezekiel or similar!

Just to balance it out a bit - even if a child is born to a married couple, what it says in black and white on the birth entry may not always be the absolute truth either...

Best wishes
Lesley

Post by **Anne H** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:09 pm

Hi Lorna,
I've had a few similar cases and I'd have to agree with Lesley in that you can never be 100% certain. If there aren't any little tell-tale signs you sometimes just have to go with your instincts.

In one of my lot there are ten children, all illigitimate and with the mother's maiden surname on record, all children went through life keeping the mother's maiden surname as their middle name and took the father's surname as their surname. On the census' they were all stated as being son to the head of household (father) with their mother stated as his housekeeper...until his DC where she as informant stated he was married to her...can't find an MC for them and don't think they ever did marry.

Regards,
Anne H

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:09 am

Hello All,

“Annals of British Legislation”, 1862, on pages 181-187, contains a section on Scottish births which is mainly devoted to illegitimacy. It’s from the “First detailed annual report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland.” 1861 (For the year 1855)
http://www.google.com.au/books?id=K7kKA ... 4-PA181,M1

It’s reasonably readable online, and downloadable, and quite interesting.

Overall the illegitimacy rate in 1855 was 7.8%. It was almost solely a labouring class thing but among that class the higher the education the higher the rate of illegitimacy. Figures for different Counties varied wildly, Ross and Cromarty couldn’t manage 4%, Aberdeen and Dumfries each managed over 13%.

Worth a read,
Alan

Lorna Allison · Post by **Lorna Allison** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:44 am

Oh dear

The child/father's name was Thomas and I just assumed . . . . . The one thing that bugged me was that father Thomas' sister took a great deal of trouble to make sure that her illegitimate son had his father's name added to the birth certificate and I did think that with that as an example Thomas or wife would have had a correction put on the birth certificate. Sadly, there is no father's name on the bc and no correction.

I suppose this is the kind of situation where DNA would come in handy, but my husband would not thank me for suggesting going down that route.

No it can just remain a

Regards

Lorna