Author Topic: Kirk sessions  (Read 4574 times)

Offline deebel

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Kirk sessions
« Reply #9 on: Tuesday 07 July 15 19:30 BST (UK) »
I was thinking more of the Kirk Session records. If they were hauled up before the Elders it would be written down in a bit of detail.

This post is a natural hand made product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws. Unfortunately my preferred method of writing (Parker Quink on Basildon Bond) cannot be used.

Offline dottie43

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Kirk sessions
« Reply #10 on: Tuesday 07 July 15 19:38 BST (UK) »
Yes deebel it was the kirk sessions I seen.
Sorry I am starting to look like am having a senior moment,

There was an Ann Forbes (my g grandmas name) fornacating with a George cormack but she stayed with a bill smith?
So I was wondering if everyone in the village was taken up in front of the kirk session for this or only those who would have been church members?
I wish my family had unusual names lol.
Thanks Dottie.

Offline deebel

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Kirk sessions
« Reply #11 on: Tuesday 07 July 15 21:44 BST (UK) »
Did the public examination of the Forbes / Cormack fornication take place before the birth of baby Forbes? Could Smith have simply decided to view her activity with the "nelson eye" ?
This post is a natural hand made product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws. Unfortunately my preferred method of writing (Parker Quink on Basildon Bond) cannot be used.

Offline dottie43

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Kirk sessions
« Reply #12 on: Tuesday 07 July 15 21:49 BST (UK) »
Hi
No the public examination came after the birth, so I am thinking surely Mr smith would not turn a blind eye, but you never know as there is nothing queerer than folk lol
Thanks again Dottie.


Offline ruthhelen

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Kirk sessions
« Reply #13 on: Tuesday 07 July 15 21:56 BST (UK) »
I have them in 1881 census living together with her down as housekeeper, is this normal practice do you think?

I have two or three instances of this in my tree, so it's certainly not uncommon  ;D

Is this the family?

1881 - Marnoch
William Smith, 56, ag labourer
Ann Forbes, 34, housekeeper
Ann L Forbes, 6, daughter
Arthur L Forbes, 2, son
Mary Forbes, 9 mnths, daughter

I think I have them again in 1891 in Peterhead, but now the children's surnames are recorded as Smith:

1891 - Peterhead
William Smith, 69, labourer (unemployed)
Ann Forbes, 48, servant
Ann Smith, 17, daughter
Arthur Smith, 13, son
William Smith, 7, son
Clementina (mis-transcribed as Alementena), 6, daughter

And again in 1901, still in Peterhead, but presumably William Smith is now dead - Ann has also changed her name to Smith:

1901 - Peterhead
Ann Smith, 58, washerwoman
Arthur Smith, 22, son
William Smith, 18, son
Clementina Smith, 15, daughter

Arthur's birth record has him registered as Arthur Forbes, and shows him as being illegitimate, but there's no RCE attached to suggest that his mother petitioned the courts to have his paternity verified. I haven't looked at his siblings, so this may or may not be true for them too.

Ruth
McArthur, Milne, Mitchell, Black, Robertson, Morrison, Slessor, Lawrence - Aberdeenshire/Banffshire. Muir, Waddell, Fraser, Orr, Cowden - Lanarkshire/Renfrewshire/Dunbartonshire. Dalziel, Dalzell, Gourley, Cromie, Crombie, Bell - Co Down. Haymon, Baker, Corke, Cooley, Ginger - Kent/London.

Offline dottie43

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Kirk sessions
« Reply #14 on: Tuesday 07 July 15 22:02 BST (UK) »
Yes deebel this is them, all the children are illegitimate and Bill smith only signed for clementina.
All the others have Forbes as a middle name except clementina so am not sure what's going on.
I know they never married.
Dottie.

Offline deebel

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Kirk sessions
« Reply #15 on: Tuesday 07 July 15 22:28 BST (UK) »
Is there a chance we are missing something here as at that time "irregular" marriages were still recognised in Scotland. They could have been married "by habit and repute". What was the outcome of the Kirk session examination. Censure or admonishment?
This post is a natural hand made product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws. Unfortunately my preferred method of writing (Parker Quink on Basildon Bond) cannot be used.

Offline dottie43

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Kirk sessions
« Reply #16 on: Tuesday 07 July 15 22:41 BST (UK) »
I don't think there could have been a marriage of any kind as he was still married to his 2nd wife, I think it said admonished. I don't know what to think.
Ruth thank you for your help as well, I automatically thought it was deebel who answered the last time.
I just don't know where to go from here, apart from waiting until I go to Edinburgh again
Thanks again Dottie.