RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Angus (Forfarshire) => Topic started by: Wendy2305 on Monday 09 October 17 21:09 BST (UK)
-
I have an ancestor who was illegitimate on his christening record in 1809 there is sponsor What was this? The father is named on the christening record and in later life the child has the fathers name and is living in the house with him his step mum for a better word and his half siblings this is in the OPRs
-
Sponsors in christening entries are what we also refer to as godparents.
Monica :)
-
Thank you Monica I thought it maybe something else as the only 2 christenings that had sponsors were illegitimate and it was the first time I had seen this
-
It does depend a little on what religion the child was baptised into.
As Monica says, sponsors in baptism listings are usually what would be called godparents in some denominations, though the Church of Scotland does not generally use the term godparents.
However if the child was illegitimate, the sponsor was a person who, in effect, gave a guarantee that the child would be supported and not become a charge on the parish poor funds. Here's an example from my own tree, with place, surnames and source references blanked out for the sake of delicacy.
19th June 1814: Compeared Margaret S an unmarried woman in Cottertown and confessed herself with child in uncleanness giving up William M a married man there as the father of her child. Both were ordered to be cited to this Session on Thursday next. [Kirk Session minutes, National Archives of Scotland]
23 June 1814 Compeared Margaret S and adhered to her former declaration in giving up William M in Cottertown as the father of her child, who being also present and interrogated acknowledged that he had carnal connection with her about twelve months ago but denied that he was the father of the child of which she now accuses him. [Kirk Session minutes, National Archives of Scotland]
4th Septr 1814 Compeared Margaret S an unmarried woman in Cottertown and adhered to her former declaration in giving up William M a married man there as the father of her child. [Kirk Session minutes, National Archives of Scotland]
11 Decr 1814: The Moderator reported that Margaret S and William M in Cottertown having compeared before the Presbytery of ..... on Wednesday last adhered to their former declarations emitted before this Session. The Moderator further observed that he was instructed by the Presbytery to baptise the child of Margaret S on her finding a sufficient sponsor. Compeared the said Margaret S at whose request the child was this day baptised she having produced her mother Jean C as sponsor, who engaged and promised that the child shall not become a burden on the parish funds. [Kirk Session minutes, National Archives of Scotland]
I still do not know the name, or even the sex, of the child involved!
-
Thank you Forfarian I have looked over a few illiagitmate records and most seem to be the maternial grandmother but this time looking to be a relative of the father will need to look into this more
-
I still do not know the name, or even the sex, of the child involved!
Forfarian...
Couldn't help but smile at that...
Father a married man, his name in full view, child's name kept secret & all that trawling to end up with nothing, sorry ;D ::)
Annie
-
Couldn't help but smile at that...
Father a married man, his name in full view, child's name kept secret & all that trawling to end up with nothing, sorry ;D ::)
I don't think the child's name was deliberately kept secret- just that the clerk didn't think it was important to record the name of the child in such circumstances. But yes, it's ironic and annoying.
I do have a slight hunch that the child may have been John, but I have nothing to prove it. This is because there is an illegitimate granddaughter with Margaret S in 1841 and 1851 census, born 1837/8, and a John S was summoned by the same Kirk Session in 1837 for the usual misdemeanour.
I am slightly less than brimming over with enthusiasm for checking the death of every John S (there are 94 of them) in Scotland born within a couple of years of 1814 just on the off-chance.
-
I am slightly less than brimming over with enthusiasm for checking the death of every John S (there are 94 of them) in Scotland born within a couple of years of 1814 just on the off-chance.
I certainly don't envy you with that task
-
I certainly don't envy you with that task
Especially as I can't be sure he didn't 'leave the country'. I doubt, in fact, that I will ever find him.
-
I certainly don't envy you with that task
Especially as I can't be sure he didn't 'leave the country'. I doubt, in fact, that I will ever find him.
Or die before 1855
-
Or die before 1855
Indeed :(