Relative in Stuartfield

[Fogmoose]

You are correct Ruth. The 1961 Donald Forsyth is indeed the son of John Forsyth and Margaret Barclay. Which means that the 1972 Donald is almost certainly my Half- G  Uncle.

And I found Jane in the 1911 census! Sadly, it is not of much use. She is visiting a family in Strichen, a William and Christina Simpson and their teen daughter. Her occupation is Sick Nurse, place of birth New Deer, but sadly thats all the information given. Really a pity that the later census returns are not available.

[Fogmoose]

As if things were not confusing enough....there appears to be another Jean Hutcheon living in New Deer, and she too is listed as a Nurse (at least in the 1871 census)! Her age is listed as 14 in 1871, making her very close in age to my Jane Hutcheon.  Why can't things ever be simple?!

[Forfarian]

As if things were not confusing enough....there appears to be another Jean Hutcheon living in New Deer, and she too is listed as a Nurse (at least in the 1871 census)! Her age is listed as 14 in 1871, making her very close in age to my Jane Hutcheon.  Why can't things ever be simple?!

Wouldn't be as interesting if it were too simple!

I wonder of this could be a double listing of the same individual? It does happen occasionally, when people don't read the instructions properly. Maybe Jean was staying overnight somewhere on census night, but someone where she normally lived didn't realise they weren't supposed to list her in her normal residence? Does the possible other one occur in any other census?

[Fogmoose]

As if things were not confusing enough....there appears to be another Jean Hutcheon living in New Deer, and she too is listed as a Nurse (at least in the 1871 census)! Her age is listed as 14 in 1871, making her very close in age to my Jane Hutcheon.  Why can't things ever be simple?!

Wouldn't be as interesting if it were too simple!

I wonder of this could be a double listing of the same individual? It does happen occasionally, when people don't read the instructions properly. Maybe Jean was staying overnight somewhere on census night, but someone where she normally lived didn't realise they weren't supposed to list her in her normal residence? Does the possible other one occur in any other census?

Have'nt had a chance to check yet, but seems unlikely. My Jane is listed in the 1871 census at home with her Mother, brother and  4 month old son. What I am concerned about is confusing her with this other Jean/Jane on later records. There appears to be a 5 year difference in age on the 1871 census. Also, the other younger Jean is listed as having been born in Tyrie...will do some further research over the weekend....crazy busy the next few days. Take care forfarian!

[flst]

She gave me a few links to follow in case the application for poor relief survives, which I will follow up on.

Have you followed up on the application for poor relief records yet?

I think I may have to inquire re: some of the hospitals where we know Jane worked...perhaps there are employee records?

 

The archivist you contacted re the Buchan Poorhouse is also the one to contact regarding any hospital records.
flst

[Fogmoose]

She gave me a few links to follow in case the application for poor relief survives, which I will follow up on.

Have you followed up on the application for poor relief records yet?

I think I may have to inquire re: some of the hospitals where we know Jane worked...perhaps there are employee records?

 

The archivist you contacted re the Buchan Poorhouse is also the one to contact regarding any hospital records.
flst

Yes, she has been very helpful so far. She was unable to find anything in the register of attendants, and the registry from that time period did not survive.

However, she had a look through the 'Registry of Offences' for the Buchan Comb. Poorhouse, and sure enough, my Jane is listed (twice!) as well as three of her children and her Baby-Daddy, Alfred Dalgar(d)no! Offences were things such as being insolent to the Governor, arguing with other inmates, and for the children staying out after curfew and running about on Sundays! Only the offenders ages and the date of the offense are given, but at least it proves that she and the children  were residents of the poorhouse from at least 1st July 1879 until the census of 1891.

Fiona (the Archivist) also said that this was very unusual, since very few people stayed in the poorhouse for such a long time. The relevant parochial board would eventually refuse to pay!

Now this is my thinking, perhaps she was a sort of In-Between inmate, in that she was useful as a Nurse so they let her stay in return for her services? Someone with more knowledge of the poorhouses will have to weigh in on this theory.

[Fogmoose]

Fiona at NHS Grampian archives has discovered more re: Jane and Alexander. Very salacious stuff! ;-)

"I've had a look through the minutes of the poorhouse board, which contain information on how much was being spent on food, making alterations to the building, and recording the reports of visits from the Board of Supervision for the Poor and the Lunacy Commission, who looked at conditions in the lunatic wards.

It is in one of these reports from the Board of Supervision that a hint is given.  The visits took place annually in October, and the Buchan Combination Poorhouse Board recorded them at their annual meeting in February.  At their meeting of February 1882 the Board of Supervision's report from October 1881 was recorded, and it contained some details to which the Governor responded.  One of these was to do with the length of time inmates were kept in a solitary cell for punishment, and the Board of Supervision stated that this was not to exceed more than 12 hours at a time.  The Governor responded thus:

"During the 6 and a half years I have been here I find one inmate has been in the cell for 8 hours, one 10 and one 13 and a half hours.  The last named was Alexander Dalgarno aged 35 years.  The facts of the case are these - the Doctor and Matron repeatedly complained of his insolence, I warned him that if it was not discontinued he would be punished.  He defied me, and I told him he would get no supper.  He attempted to strike me with one of the old men's walking sticks and after I had the stick from him I had some difficulty in saving myself from not only his fists but his feet and teeth.  In going to the cell he struck the attendant a blow which bled his nose.  He was in the cell from 6pm until 7.30am.  In addition to his clothes he had the whole of his bed clothes, mattress and pillow."

So, that explains why Alexander Dalgarno appears in the Register of Offences!  But yet there's more.  After the Governor's report explaining what had happened, there is another entry.

"The Governor reported the case of Jane Hutcheon who had lately given birth to an illegitimate child in the House whereof she accused as the father the man Dalgarno who is referred to above.  The Governor had previously reported the case to the Board of Supervision from whom a letter was read wherein it was stated that there must be some defect in the arrangements as to the separation of the sexes.  The Committee having examined the woman and made other enquiry find that all precautions have been taken for the separation of the sexes but regret that it is beyond their power to keep them from meeting occasionally."

And so there it is - proof that Jane is saying Alexander Dalgarno is the father of her child.  I scoured the minutes to see if I could find anything else about the case, but there were no other references to it, which is a pity.  However, there may be something in the Board of Supervision records which are held at the National Records of Scotland...."

I have sent an inquiry to NRS so hopefully they will follow up with me. I'm hoping against hope that perhaps Jane's application for poor relief somehow ended up with those records...or at least some further information on her case.

I also would be inclined to think that given the character of Alexander outlined in these passages, perhaps Jane's dalliance with him was not consensual? Its certainly a possibility, but the fact that she appears to have had a proclivity for this type of thing (to say the least!) would tend to discount that being the case.  Any input is welcome!

[flst]

What a great find!
flst

[ruthhelen]

Yes indeed - what a find - it brings it all to life 

Have you followed the child of this elicit relationship - Alfred Dalgarno Hutcheon?

I think I have him in 1901, going by the name of Alfred H Dalgarno, as an agricultural labourer on a farm in Old Deer.

He next shows up as Alfred Hutcheon in 1906 in Edinburgh, where he marries Mary Ann Broadfoot (b. 9 Apr 1886, Kirkmabreck, Kirkcubrightshire - d. 2 Jan 1951, Musselburgh, Midlothian). I can’t seem to find the marriage entry, but Alfred and Mary Ann had a daughter - Mary Jane Hutcheon - in 1915 in Musselburgh, Midlothian, and their wedding date is noted as 17 May 1906 in Edinburgh.

Between 1901 and 1915 Alfred must have joined the army, as he is listed on the birth register of his daughter as a Private in the Gordon Highlanders. He went to France in May 1915, just after his daughter was born. After leaving the army, he looks to have become a coal miner, and died in Musselburgh in 1960.

I don’t know whether Alfred and Mary Ann had any other children, but their daughter Mary Jane Hutcheon married Alexander Anderson in 1940 in Cockenzie, East Lothian - she registered her father’s death in 1960.

Ruth