RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Topic started by: jonwicken on Wednesday 27 December 17 21:24 GMT (UK)
-
Hi I am trying to unravel my ancestors in Cruden, Aberdeenshire, and have a couple of queries from entries I am come across in the registers there. I have two queries on the following:
1. Illegitimacy
On 18 June 1716 George Freeland son of George Freeland was baptised and it states he was 'born in fornication'.
On 22 August 1728 John Laurenson son of John Laurenson was baptised and it also states he was 'born in fornication'.
These are both clearly illegitimate children but I find it interesting that here the mother's names were not listed and the father's were. This would not be the case in English records where usually only the mother's name would be recorded along with usually 'base born'.
Also I am surprised that both children took the surname of the father. This is again different to English parish records where the child would usually have taken the mother's surname.
I wonder if anyone knows any more about this as it seems in Scotland at this time even with illegitimate children things were even more patriarchal than in England.
2. Incest
On 4 June 1756 Peter Sangster son of Thomas Sangster was baptised and the entry states the child was 'begot in incest with Margaret Crookshank'. Now I can't work out who Thomas and Margaret were but they were not full siblings so I am wondering what 'incest' referred to. Must they have been half siblings or what else would have been considered incest?
Interestingly related to my first question, the entry states that the child was 'presented to baptism by... William Sangster, brother to the sd Thos Sangster' so again the child being illegitimate was taken to church by the father's family, not the mother's.
If anyone has any thoughts or knowledge on these things I would be most grateful so I can understand the social customs regarding these issues at the time.
With thanks and kind regards,
Jon
-
Can't help with your second query but in regard of illegitimate children it sounds like that the fathers recognised the children were theirs and appeared with the mother for the christening also in that time period it was usual for mothers not to be named whether married or not in the parish books (in the case of unmarried mothers if the father attended the christening)
-
It may be that in Cruden at that time no mothers were recorded in baptism entries. It is quite common for fathers only to be recorded. The answer is to look in the minutes of the Kirk Session which should mention the mothers and give other details.
Normally the father would present a child for baptism, but if he were under kirk discipline and had not been readmitted to full communion, someone else would act as sponsor of the child.
-
It was not only Cruden but parishes all over Scotland.
If you do a random search on SP with 'surname beginning' & put in any initial then for 'Forename' use a common name (John), use dates e.g. 1710 - 1740 & choose 'All' for County, I'm sure you will find only the father's name in different areas all over.
Edit to add, it doesn't appear to have been a rule but how the Clergy of a particular Parish did his record keeping.
Annie
-
I have read over your 'Incest' question a few times & wonder...
As women in Scotland whether married or unmarried at the time of baptism of their child/children would be named by their maiden name...
Is it possible for Margaret Crookshank to have been the wife of William Sangster?
If so, could 'incest' have been the term for the fact Thomas was the brother of William i.e. not being divorced but an 'affair' which could be seen as 'keeping it in the family' ?
Or...could Margaret & the Sangster brothers have been 1st cousins?
You did ask for 'any thoughts' ;D
Annie
-
Although George Freeland and John Laurenson were "born in fornication" might their parents have married after births of their sons and before they were baptised? Fornication may have included pre-marital sex.
Q.2 Sangster and Crookshank. Could they have been in-laws? Marrying a brother-in-law or sister-in-law was incest in some eras & religions. Uncle and niece/aunt & nephew?
-
It was pretty much the norm for any unmarried pregnant woman to be summoned before the Kirk Session and interrogated about the identity of the father. This was, as far as I can tell, for two reasons.
The ostensible reason was an attempt to stamp out fornication, which was regarded as a major sin (some Kirk Session records even describe it as a 'crime'). The couple were subjected to various punishments including having to appear in church as penitents, being denied the benefits of church membership, and paying a fine. Judging from the amount of time and the number of pages in the minutes devoted to records of 'discipline' by the Kirk Sessions, it was pretty ineffective.
The benefits of church membership included baptism of the resulting child, and I've come across a few references in the parish register to a child being presented for baptism by someone other than the usual parent because the usual parent is still 'under scandal'.
Digression - My own great-great-grandfather's elder sister was "presented by the mother the father being under scandal". The Kirk Session minutes reveal the nature of the 'scandal': "it having been reported to the Session by the Elders that [my great-great-great-grandfather] seldom or ever attended any place of public worship and that he had continued for several years past habitually in the neglect of this duty, the Session therefore were of opinion that he had no right to the sealing ordinances of the Gospel whilst he continued in this criminal neglect of attending the public worship of God in the Church upon the Lord's Day - they therefore did and hereby do suspend him from all sealing ordinances of the Gospell untill he give evidence of his repentance and reformation". This dire, dreadful and singularly pointless sentence evidently, and not surprisingly, had no effect whatsoever on my gggf because from then on all his children, including my ggf, were presented for baptism by my gggm.)
The other reason, not usually explicitly stated in the KS minutes, was to prevent the child becoming a charge on the parish, or at least so that they knew whom to target to pay for the maintenance of the child if the mother and her family were unable to do so.
Generally speaking the whole parish usually knew who had fathered which illegitimate child, and it was the norm for such children to be known by their fathers' surnames.
If the parents married after the birth of a child, the marriage legitimated the child retrospectively provided that the parents were free to marry at the time of its conception. So a child born in adultery as opposed to simple fornication could not be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of its parents once the one who was married at the time of conception had become free to marry.
-
Thanks very much for all your replies. Last week I finally visited Aberdeenshire after twenty years of wanting to visit! I had a dig about the archives and one thing I did was look at the Kirk session records for Cruden which can be seen online.
While there are some minutes surviving from the 1680s, really the minutes start in 1720 so I was able to find out who the mother of George Freeland's son born in 1716 was.
However the minutes for July 1728 name John Lawrence and Barbara Hay being reprimanded for their behaviour. A pregnancy is not mentioned, presumably as there was no secret or dispute so the mother did not have to be questioned and the child's father did not have to be summoned. As John Lawrenceson junior was baptised in August 1728, his mother must have been Barbara Hay. AS john later married Elizabeth Hay in 1732, could they have been sisters?!
I was also able to find out about the incestuous relationship I also discussed. We know that on 4 June 1756 Peter Sangster son of Thomas Sangster was baptised at Cruden and the entry states the child was 'begot in incest with Margaret Crookshank'.
The Kirk sessions reveal how this was incestuous. It turns out that Margaret Crookshank was the daughter of Alexander Crookshank of Easter Ardiffery. Thomas Sangster had been married to the [unnamed] sister of Alexander Crrokshank. So therefore Thomas had begun a relationship with his niece by marriage. Not quite the incest we would think of today.
The interesting thing is that this relationship is first mentioned in the Kirk minutes in 1752, four years before the 1756 baptism. Their relationship is mentioned many times over the following period but despite everything, Thomas and Margaret did not separate. One Kirk session minute refers to how prayers were said by the congregation for them!
I can't find the baptism for Margaret daughter of Alexander Cruikshank and nor can I find a marriage of a Thomas Sangster to a Crookshank which is a shame as I would like to know more about this. But thought you might like to hear what I found out.
Best wishes,
Jon
-
My goodness, what a delightful story! I do hope they were happy, either despite or due to the prayers of the congregation.
Peter is my 4th gg-father; I was researching him on FamilySearch.org but they had him conflated with a fellow named Patrick christened in Gamrie, and whyever would a family who did all their other business in Cruden and Slains traipse forty miles to Gamrie to baptize a tiny infant? So I googled on Peter Sangster with the 1756 birthdate I had for him, and Cruden -- a trick that occasionally works magic -- and found your comment, and rootschat.com, which I hadn't known about.
So thank you!
This is enough to be going on with, but if you happened to have citations or scans, or more about the Crookshanks, I'd be grateful.
-
Peter & Patrick are interchangeable which may help others.
Annie
-
Thank you! In fact, Peter-of-Cruden's marriage record had him as Patrick, so this is helpful. I've noticed that Scottish records are very casual about names, and that Jean could be Jennie, Jane, Jeanie, and even Annie, but hadn't come across this one.
Interestingly, Family Search turns up a brother to Peter: Charles Sangster, born in Cruden on 15 Nov 1752, son of Thomas Sangster and Margaret Crookshank, so the first mention by the Church in 1752 must have been prompted by baby Charles.
(This is sourced by FamilySearch's transcriptions of original sources, called an IGG; they're of varying quality, but this lot does seem to be in line with the originals.) Here's the family with Charles included. (Free signup.)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/family/KHWB-JH2
-
I have been reading your thread with interest. I am descended from the Freeland's from Whinnyfold, Cruden and wondered if and how you are connected with them?
Many thanks.
-
I have been reading your thread with interest. I am descended from the Freeland's from Whinnyfold, Cruden and wondered if and how you are connected with them?
Many thanks.
My most recent Freeland ancestor is my 5x great grandmother Mary Freeland who married Alexander Lawrence|Laurenson in Cruden in 1778.
Mary Freeland was baptised Cruden 1756 and was the daughter of George Freeland and Janet Smith who married in Cruden in 1755.
George Freeland was baptised in Cruden in 1725 who was my 6x great grandfather and was the son of Robert Freeland.
I have a DNA match on ancestry with a Rosemary S****a who is a descendant of George's brother Alexander (also baptised in 1725) which appears to prove my genetic descent from Robert Freeland.
Robert Freeland was therefore my 7x great grandfather. This is also the earliest genetic ancestor I have so far identified. He must have been born before c1704 and appears to have been alive in 1760.
He was a witness to the Cruden baptism of Alexander Freeland son of Alexander Freeland as Robert Freeland Senior in 1755. As 'Robert Freeland Younger' was witness to baptism of Janet, daughter William Freeland in 1760, Robert senior is therefore assumed to have been alive at this time.
What is your descent from the Freeland family?
Best wishes,
Jon
-
Good afternoon Jon
Thank you for your message. I too am related to Rosemary; Rosemary's Great Grandfather John was a brother of my Great Great Grandfather Robert, both being sons of John Freeland and Margaret Stephen. So that means that we are related too! Any information that I have, I'm happy to share with you.
Kind regards
Catriona
-
Great to hear from you! I rather suspect that Robert Freeland's assumed to be twin sons born in 1725 were identical and that might explain how I have a match with Rosemary.
I cannot get further back than Robert Freeland who must have been born before c1704. Some trees have him as being born elsewhere but I think that is just someone just finding the same name and putting them together.
I would love to know what you have on the earlier Freelands.
Best wishes,
Jon
-
I have had a look in the text of the 1696 Poll of Cruden that can be read here:
https://digital.nls.uk › dcn6PDF
List of pollable persons within the shire of Aberdeen. 1696
The only Freiland I could see is this one. So maybe they were Robert's parents.
-
Hi Jon
I too have always assumed that John Freilland and Margaret Rait were the "start" of the Freeland family in the area - parents of Robert and George Freeland, both of whom must have been born about 1700 (as George had an illegitimate son in 1716 and both Robert and George had children about 1724/25). There is a family legend that came down to me that the Freeland's were originally from Denmark. One day a Danish ship was shipwrecked off of Whinnyfold with a Freeland onboard. He was saved by the locals and eventually married one of them and settled in the area. Given that John Freilland was the only person in the whole of Aberdeenshire in the poll tax of 1696 who had a name like Freeland, it wouldn't take much to convince me that John Freilland could be that shipwrecked person!
You mentioned that you assume that Robert had twin sons - that is a possibility but there is also a possibility that there were several children who were all christened together but who were not the same age. I have found numerous cases in my family researching where there were four or five children of the same parents were all baptised at the same time, but they were of different ages - not sure the reasoning behind that, whether there wasn't a Minister in the parish and then all the children were baptised when a new Minister arrived, or whether family circumstances meant that children couldn't be baptised immediately, perhaps because the Father was at sea for months on end(?); they were very often baptised a few days or a couple of weeks after the baby was born, probably something to do with the high mortality rate of babies and the feeling that they would not get to Heaven if they were not baptised and then died??) A fascinating subject in itself!
Happy to give you any information on the family that I can help with.
Catriona
-
Hi Catriona,
I love the shipwrecked story! I have seen that a Netherlands version of the surname was Vreeland, so perhaps the Danish was similar?
This is the correct link to the 1696 Aberdenshire poll for others reading this that are interested: https://digital.nls.uk/dcn6/8038/80388886.6.pdf (https://digital.nls.uk/dcn6/8038/80388886.6.pdf)
Looking at the 1725 baptisms of George and Alexander (sons of Robert), John Freeland was a witness/sponsor. This adds weight to the fact that Robert might be his son. However wouldn't it be expected that one of these sons was called John?
In fact George (Robert's assumed brother and hypothetical son of John) did not name any of his children born between 1724 and 1744 John. This seems a bit irregular to me given Scottish naming patterns and indeed naming patterns of the time.
However we know John Freeland was a relative as he was a witness/sponsor at that 1725 baptism. I have looked at the other early 1720s baptisms for Freeland children in Cruden and can find only one Freeland witness/sponsor in these baptisms, that of this John Freeland in 1725.
I absolutely know that sometimes children were baptised together, but I haven't found this for my lines in Cruden parish. I just feel that if Robert and Alexander were identical twins it would explain how I am able to identify an ancestor as far back as Robert Freeland. Let's see what turns up!
There is an Ann Freeland in Ellon who appears to have married twice, firstly to Alexander Cruden in 1722 and then to William Dicky in 1723. She appears to have died in 1724. She is the only other Freeland in Aberdeenshire for the period 1650 to 1750 in the registers so is presumably a sister of George and Alexander.
Have you done a DNA test? On ancestry a have quite a few DNA matches to descendants of James Freeland who was born in Ireland late 1600s, but whose family were apparently Scottish and moved to Massachusetts. Have you come across these in your research at all?
More on them here: http://mymaineancestry.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-sutton-freelands.html (http://mymaineancestry.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-sutton-freelands.html)
All for now,
Jon
-
I too have always assumed that John Freilland and Margaret Rait were the "start" of the Freeland family in the area - parents of Robert and George Freeland, both of whom must have been born about 1700 (as George had an illegitimate son in 1716 and both Robert and George had children about 1724/25).
I was having a look at marriages of Freelands in Scotland and came across this one:
JOHN FREELAND & MARGRAT WRE
31/07/1683 FINTRY (STIRLINGSHIRE)
I can't properly read the entry but it looks like it mentions Campsie and there are other Freelands there, including Freelands with the name Robert.
It looks possible that this might be their marriage to me. What are your thoughts?
Jon
-
Re: Incest in Scots Law
Until the coming into force of the Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Act 1986, this was governed by the Incest Act 1567, which introduced Leviticus Chapter 18 in its entirety into the law
"Concerning those that commit incest
Item, forasmuch as the abominable, vile and filthy lust of incest is so abominable in the presence of God, and that the same eternal God, by his express word, has condemned the same, and yet nonetheless the said vice is so used within this realm, and the word of God is in such sort condemned by the users thereof, that God by his just judgements has occasion to plague the realm where the said vice is committed (unless God, of his mercy, being more gracious, and remedy being provided, that the said vice cease in time coming); therefore, our sovereign lord... statutes and ordains that whatsoever person or persons, committers of the said abominable crime of incest, that is to say, whatsoever person or persons they be that abuses their body with such persons in degree, as God's word has expressly forbidden, in any time coming, as is contained in the 18th chapter of Leviticus, shall be punished to the death."
Verse 6 of the Geneva Edition then used in Scotland stated
"None shal come nere to anie of ye kindred of his flesh to uncover her shame: I am the Lord."
Verse 17 stated
"Thou shalt not discover the shame of ye wife and of her daughter, nether shalt ye take her sonnes daughter, nor her daughters daughter, to uncover her shame: for they are thy kinsfolk, and it were wickednes."
The definition of incest therefore depended upon the perception of who were "Kinsfolk". This was not incest as defined by the criminal law, so the Kirk was being a bit censorious in defining this as a child born in incest.
-
The definition of incest therefore depended upon the perception of who were "Kinsfolk". This was not incest as defined by the criminal law, so the Kirk was being a bit censorious in defining this as a child born in incest.
That is really helpful to aid understanding of the term and its use in this case.
Thanks so much for posting, djct59.
-
Hi Jon
I don't think that it the same Freelands I'm afraid, as Fintry, Stirlingshire is 160 miles away from Whinnyfold. Nowadays, it is not uncommon to move from one part of the country to another, but at the time that we are talking about, people tended to be born, live and die in the same hamlet, village or town and not move around.
We may also never find the marriage of John Freeland and Margaret Rait or other children that they may have had (who may have been called John but may not have survived to adulthood) as the Old Parochial Registers of Scotland "list" of registers handed over to the authorities and compiled in 1872 shows that the Old Parochial Register from Cruden covered births and marriages from 1707 to 1759; deaths from 1707 until 1811; births and marriages from 1760 until 1819; births and marriages from 1820 until 1854 and deaths from 1828 until 1854. https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//research/list-of-oprs/detailed-list-of-old-parochial-registers-of-scotland.pdf
Given that I think that John and Margaret had their children round about the poll tax record of 1696 and the early 1700's, these children will not be listed anywhere and would only be mentioned later in life if they subsequently had children of their own. There was a dreadful famine countrywide in Scotland in the 1690's and many children did not survive that, this might explain why it looks as if John and Margaret only had two children, Robert and George. Perhaps they were the only two who survived childhood?
(Famine in Scotland - the 'Ill Years' of the 1690s By Karen Cullen - an extremely interesting read!)
Kind regards
Catriona