naming customs and illegitimacy

marypryde · Post by **marypryde** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:18 pm

My Greatgrandmother in Fife had three illegitimate sons in the 1870's and 1880's. There are no indications in SP as to who the father may have been. Does anyone know if the traditional naming customs would have applied? Sons were: 1. James 2. Robert 3. William. I do know that Robert was the maternal grandfather. What are the chances that a James was the paternal grandfather and a William was the father?

Post by **SarahND** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:02 pm

Hi Marypryde,
In most of the illegitimate births I have found, the male children are given the name of the father, not the grandfather, and often the middle name is the surname of the father. Did your great grandmother give the boys middle names?

All the best,
Sarah

Moray_Lass · Post by **Moray_Lass** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:21 pm

I can't speak for traditional but I can back up Sarah.

My gxgrandmother had five children and thanks to those that had Kirk Session Minutes it looks like that last three had the father's surname as a middle name, and in the case of the boys, they had the father's first name too. Sadly my Grandfather (no 5) doesn't have a KSM, so I can only assume that is true.

The first two (girls) don't have their father's surname at all, the first has 'Ann McKimmie' as middle names, which would have been gxgrandmother's aunts name if she had married the father of her illegitmate child

The Second no middle name at all.

So Kirk Session Minutes would be your best confirmation.

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:26 pm

I think in many areas the at the time of the births, 1870-80s, the Kirk Session minutes may not be so descriptive about illegitimate births as they might have been in earlier years.

marypryde - do the birth entries have any stamp in the left column? (may indicate that the mother may have taken the father to court for payment of some upkeep for the child)

Best wishes
Lesley

marypryde · Post by **marypryde** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:59 pm

Thanks to all. On all three birth registrations there are no middle names and no marks in the left column. Just registered by their mother, with her maiden name (agric. laborer) and clearly marked "ILLIGITIMATE."

Let me see if I can find anything in KSR, but I think I tried that some time back with no luck. It was a coal mining family; basically serfs as I understand it, and probably not church-going people.

I have also wondered if GGM Isabella was just a naughty girl or if in that time and place she was a victim of the culture (e.g., coal mine managers having privileges similar to what went on with the American slaves.)

Post by **paddyscar** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:17 pm

Hi Marypryde:

I'd venture that she was a victim of the times. How could a woman, and so many were really children, refuse a man upon whose whim she could be thrown out, beaten or killed? Beyond the first incident, she would have her child to consider as well, so refusing those in authority, becomes even less an option.

Frances

marypryde · Post by **marypryde** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:16 pm

Hi, Frances,

She and her 3 illegitimate boys lived with her parents. Since her father and several brothers all in the same household were coalminers, I'm speculating that their jobs, shelter and food could have been at risk, too. She never did marry and lived to be 95!

Post by **joette** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:48 pm

Maybe she did want children but didn't want to be married or perhaps the father was already married.
We often think we are the generation that discovered sex! Our ancestors knew it well or else we wouldn't be here.
It is also true that once people had more disposable income & fewer working hours they were more wont to pursue other leisure activities!
I have many ancestors who I am sure if the time,technology,energy & money were available would have been web-surfing or playing football rather than pursuing lassies/lads around the Town!

Post by **Anne H** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:48 pm

Whilst we like to think of our ancestors as being victims of the times, there was also a lot of drunkeness and prostitution in those days. So whether we like it or not, we have to be realistic and look at our ancestors from all aspects if we want the truth. Look for local writings/books to see if you can get an idea of what went on in the area where your ancestors lived.

Whatever their lifestyle, and for whatever reasons for their illigitimate children being born, they are our ancestors who without their antics and behaviors we wouldn't be here to track them down today.

Regards,
Anne H

Montrose Budie · Post by **Montrose Budie** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:54 pm

marypryde wrote:....snipped........
Let me see if I can find anything in KSR, but I think I tried that some time back with no luck. It was a coal mining family; basically serfs as I understand it, and probably not church-going people.

Various parliamentary acts in the late 1700s and very early 1800s freed miners from what you correctly compare with serfdom.

mb