Definition of Children's births

[Grothenwell]

I'm pretty sure I know the definitions of these descriptions of children born in 1810 in Kintore, but I can't find a site to confirm my understanding. It's just strange seeing them all together on one baptism page.

"legitimated child", (parents married after birth)
"natural child", (illegitimate child, interestingly both parents named)
"lawful child" (legitimate child)

Thanks

[MonicaL]

Some guidance notes here www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/guides/birth-death-and-marriage-records/old-parish-registers/births-and-baptisms

Where a child was illegitimate, likely the Kirk Elders had some involvement in the naming of the father in their registers.... Maybe some fines applied to both reputed father and mother too.

Monica

[Forfarian]

I think your understanding is the same as mine, Grothenwell, though 'legitimated child' looks odd; I think it implies that the parents married between the birth and the baptism.

There's nothing unusual in an illegitimate child being known by its father's surname. In fact I think I've probably come across more cases of that than the opposite.

The kirk session (committee of minister and elders) would certainly have taken an interest in the pregnancy of any unmarried woman, or of any woman who had not been married long enough to preclude the possibility of pre-marital sex (antenuptial fornication is the usual phrase).

They would summon the woman and ask her who the father was. If she named someone, they would summon him to attend a meeting with her and question them both. If they were satisfied that the man was the father, or that the child had been conceived before the couple's marriage, the parties would have to perform a penance by standing in front of the congregation in church three times, and they would pay a fine that went into the poors' fund.

If the woman refused to say who the father was, or if the man absconded, the thing would grind on, usually inconclusively, though the woman could eventually perform her penance and be absolved from scandal, which would allow of her marrying someone else. Occasionally, in these cases, the child's marriage or death certificate will name the putative father.

The most interesting cases are the ones where the woman names a man, and he appears and denies paternity. The kirk session then seeks out evidence, which can be very entertaining. I have one, for example, where the session heard from several people who said that they had seen the parties, known to be lad and lass to one another, going into a barn where they remained, without lights, for two hours, about nine months before the birth of the child, and the kirk session concluded that he was indeed the father. The man absconded and eloped to Ireland with another woman, whom he married. The woman married someone else.

There were two reasons for all this. First, the openly acknowledged desire to stamp out sin in the form of fornication. Second, the less openly acknowledged desire to prevent the child becoming a charge on the parish poors' fund.

[Grothenwell]

I think your understanding is the same as mine, Grothenwell, though 'legitimated child' looks odd; I think it implies that the parents married between the birth and the baptism.

As always thanks to you and Monica for the great knowledge you share.

All 1810 Kintore, marriage was 1st March, legitimated birth 14th April, baptism 1st May

[Forfarian]

All 1810 Kintore, marriage was 1st March, legitimated birth 14th April, baptism 1st May

Well, it seems obvious that the child was conceived out of wedlock, so the clerk must have thought that meant that it was legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents.

[RJ_Paton]

All 1810 Kintore, marriage was 1st March, legitimated birth 14th April, baptism 1st May

Well, it seems obvious that the child was conceived out of wedlock, so the clerk must have thought that meant that it was legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents.

Must admit this is the first I've seen in the OPR's - mostly the ones I've seen are post 1855.
The legal position was that if the parents of a child born out of wedlock were free to get married and subsequently did so then the child's birth was legitimised. However if at the time of the child's birth  either of the parties was not free to get married (perhaps one was already married) even if they later went on to get married the child would remain "officially" illegitimate.