RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Topic started by: Schoch on Monday 03 December 18 14:30 GMT (UK)
-
I am led to understand that frequently children born in Scotland (1700 - 1850's) outside of marriage were not registered. If this is indeed the case then how can I track my ancestors who fall into this category.
(and there are a few of them)?
Richard :-\
-
I would assume they would be baptised/christened
Louisa Maud
-
children born in Scotland (1700 - 1850's) outside of marriage were not registered.
As I understand it, civil registration did not start till 1855 in Scotland, so no child was registered before that date ::)
-
Many baptisms of children born both in and out of wedlock were not recorded in the parish registers or the records have been lost. The fact that the parents weren't married doesn't really affect whether a baptism was recorded.
If a child was born to an unmarried couple who would have been free to marry at the time, subsequent marriage of the parents made the child legitimate.
If an unmarried mother were expecting or had given birth to a child, the Kirk Session of the parish would look into the matter and the Session minutes can provide lots of details including the name and sometimes the occupation and address of the father.
-
I am led to understand that frequently children born in Scotland (1700 - 1850's) outside of marriage were not registered. If this is indeed the case then how can I track my ancestors who fall into this category.
(and there are a few of them)?
Richard :-\
Not strictly true, but they may not be entered into the relevant Old Parish Register (OPR) by the minister. While civil registration didn't begin in Scotland until 1855, ministers were responsible for the recording of births and marriages where appropriate. Some were better than others, and now not all records have survived.
The only place to access these, and Scottish civil registrations, is on the pay-per-view site www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk which also has lists of what survives for each parish. Bear in mind that the OPRs were kept by Church of Scotland ministers, so there are separate ones for Roman Catholics. Other denominations, such as episcopalian a bit trickier as there is no central repository for these so they're scattered about.
Kirk Session records, which are separate from the OPRs may also contain information on fornicating couples who may be asked to appear before the congregation as a result. Many of these are held in Edinburgh at the National Records of Scotland but some local archives, such as Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness and Hawick provide online access to them.
All in all, it depends on the area you are looking at, the minister who was responsible, and whether the OPRs have survived. Even those which have are not necessarily a complete list of events.
-
I am led to understand that frequently children born in Scotland (1700 - 1850's) outside of marriage were not registered. If this is indeed the case then how can I track my ancestors who fall into this category.
(and there are a few of them)?
Richard :-\
Out of curiosity how do you know they were born out of wedlock?
Jen
-
'cause their parents did not marry for a couple of years and were 16 & 12 yrs old when the 1st was born. They went on the have 3 other children but the 1st two have never showed up on records. Both parents died before any of the children were 10 so it has been very hard to find any details.
This has been on another post a while back but at that time I was only trying to identify a siblings, not the parents and their marriages.
John Gibson 1774 Yetholm - 1801
1) Margaret Sheil 1778 Sprouston to Unk ? (no marriage found to date but thought to be mother of 1st two below).
2) Sarah Robertoun 1773 Crailing - 1803 (marriage 1795, documented mother of last 3).
Children Andrew Gibson 1790 Roxburghshire - 1873
Archibald Gibson 1794 Roxburgh - 1758 (he is my direct ancestor)
Robert Gibson 1795 - Crailing (?)-1796
Isabel Gibson 1797 Crailing - ?
Janet 1798 Crailing - 1863
There is a chance that Sarah was the mother of all children but as no record can be found of the births for the 1st two. Margaret is speculation really.
Oh I nearly forgot Andrew and Archibald each were witnesses at the others weddings in Newcastle.
Thanks
Richard
-
Something doesn't add up here, or maybe I have misunderstood.
ScotlandsPeople has baptisms for Gibsons :
John Gibson - to John Gibson / Margaret Shiel 23 June 1788
Andrew - John Gibson and Margaret Shiel 4 April 1790
Robert - John Gibson and Sarah Robertson 9 July 1795
Isabel - John Gibson and Sarah Robertson 13 Feb. 1797
Janet - John Gibson and Sarah Robertson 23 Dec 1798.
Are you saying that John Gibson father was 14 when his first son was born?
And Margaret was 10?
Sorry but I don't see it. Also, the Margaret born in 1788 was the daughter of David and Agnes, and the normal naming pattern would give the second son the name of David, not Andrew.
Bev
-
Have you looked at the originals of those baptisms on Scotland's People? If not, then that is your first step.
Are the children described as 'lawful' (legitimate) or 'natural' (illegitimate)? Or are there any other clues?
If they were indeed illegitimate, the next step is to look in the Kirk Session minutes as GR2 has suggested, and see what more you can learn from them.
I take it that you are working back from one of the brothers who were married in England, and that you know from their marriage records that their father was John Gibson but not who their mother was.
Do not make the mistake of assuming that, just because there is only one potential candidate in the surviving records, it must be the right person.
Also, I am very doubtful about a 12-year-old, let alone a 10-year-old, becoming a mother. The age of menarche in girls has got younger in the last couple of centuries, and it would have been extremely rare for a girl to be capable of conceiving a child at 11 in the 18th century. Far more likely that the relevant records have not survived.
In which case, of course, the answer to your question is that you won't be able to track them further back.
-
Previous threads on the same family
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=590486
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=640849
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=713022
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=715429
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=762664
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=779887
There are also others relating to later generations.
-
1st my apologies .. I made the "assumption" that Margaret Shiel was born the same year that she was baptized.
Now as to naming conventions. I understood the 1st born son being named after the father but the 2nd son, I did not know that he would be named after the mothers father (if I follow you Bevj).
So I have John/Margaret with children John and Andrew (with a possible missing David).
Then John/Sarah with Robert/Isabel and Janet (naming convention seems not to be followed here though).
I am still left with Archibald, and no record of his birth or parents (with a naming convention issue as well).
Not sure I am any further forward as Archibald is the one I am trying to prove. ???
Anyway thanks for the input ...it's back to more digging I think
Richard
-
You have to find births of infants that mayou have died young too.sometimes a child dies and a later child is given same forename so the children will not appear in order 3rd boyear named after father 3rd girl after her mother but does anyone know trad conventions after that ...I think it does involve great grandparents .If a man remarried his first daughter would be named after new wife's mother. ..but what about the other children .My MacD families often had 12 children so I get to see patterns but also have several cousins in each generation with same names and uncles younger than their nephews etc .when my grandfather was born his eldest brother already had 2 sons
My gp aren't sure broke swith tradition in 1930 and named my father after a man (who had been important in grand dads life but not sure how ....they always joked he was named after milkman but DNA has confirmed I have same blood as the 1850 Macds)It might have been after a naval officeyr who helped financially or had saved his life
-
You have to find births of infants that mayou have died young too.sometimes a child dies and a later child is given same forename so the children will not appear in order 3rd boyear named after father 3rd girl after her mother but does anyone know trad conventions after that ...I think it does involve great grandparents .
There was a tradition of naming children according to the following rules:
The 1st son was usually named after the father's father
The 2nd son was usually named after the mother's father
The 3rd son was usually named after the father
The 4th son was usually named after the father's eldest brother
The 5th son was usually named after the mother's eldest brother
The 1st daughter was usually named after the mother's mother
The 2nd daughter was usually named after the father's mother
The 3rd daughter was usually named after the mother
The 4th daughter was usually named after the mother's eldest sister
The 5th daughter was usually named after the father's eldest sister
The problem with relying too heavily on naming patterns is that, apart from the fact that not all families followed it, there are lots of things that can upset it. In addition to a deceased child’s name being reused later in the line, sometimes if a close relative had just died, their name was used for the next child out of respect. And so on.
-
1st my apologies .. I made the "assumption" that Margaret Shiel was born the same year that she was baptized.
Which is one of the reasons why you need to look at the original document to see what it says about the baptism.
Now as to naming conventions. I understood the 1st born son being named after the father but the 2nd son, I did not know that he would be named after the mothers father (if I follow you Bevj).
The tradition is
First son after paternal grandfather
Second son after maternal grandfather
Third son after father
First daughter after maternal grandmother
Second daughter after paternal grandmother
Third daughter after mother
There are varying versions of it after that, some involving great-grandparents and some involving (great-)uncles/aunts but it isn't infallible. There are also other things, like the first child baptised by a new minister being named after him, or a child being named after doctor/schoolmaster/landowner or someone else outisde the family whom the parents wish to compliment.
I am still left with Archibald, and no record of his birth or parents (with a naming convention issue as well).
Is all you know about Archibald for certain that his father is John, from his marriage certificate? Why do you think that either Margaret Shiel or Sarah Robertson is Archibald's mother? Are you 'assuming' because there are no other possibles, or do you have any definite evidence to support this hypothesis?
-
Forfarian,
In answer to your question regarding Archibald. I have his marriage record (Newcastle) that shows a Andrew Gibson was a witness (also Andrews marriage in Newcastle showing Archibald as witness). I have census for both showing their births in Roxburghshire (Roxburgh).
From ScotlandsPeople I have a record of Andrews parents as John/Margaret, so I have made a tentative connection that Archibald's parents were one of the same. However I can find no record of Archibalds birth in either Scotland (Roxburghshire areas) or in the Scottish Borders. The two could just as soon be cousins and not brothers.
As for the John/Sarah marriage.. well they were married near that area and both died early, suggesting the children might have been farmed out to relatives etc. But neither seem to have had sons named Archibald or Andrew and both were born prior to their marriage anyway, hence my original question regarding children born out of wedlock.
'tis a vexing problem indeed.
Thanks
Richard
Naming conventions can be helpful sometimes but do not seem to be as reliable as some might suggest.
-
From ScotlandsPeople I have a record of Andrews parents as John/Margaret, so I have made a tentative connection that Archibald's parents were one of the same.
Yes, I see that.
But how do you know for certain that this particular couple are the parents of either Andrew or Archibald? Is there any independent evidence to corroborate this?
You have Archibald Gibson, aged 57 on census day (31 March) 1851, born Roxburgh. So if his age is accurate he was born between 1 April 1793 and 31 March 1794, and somewhere in the County of Roxburgh. You also have Andrew Gibson, aged 66, born Roxborough. If his age is accurate he was born between 1 April 1784 and 31 March 1785. The 1841 only says they were born in Scotland, and gives Andrew's age as 50 and Archibald's as 45. Adults' ages were supposed to be rounded down to the nearest 5 years in 1841, so if Andrew's age is accurate he could have been anything from 50 to 54, and born between 8 June 1786 and 7 June 1791. This does not overlap with the 1851 information, so one of them has to be wrong. Archibald's age in 1841 is consistent with his age in 1851. Neither of these censuses contains any other clues that I can see.
Scotland's People lists just one Andrew Gibson baptised in Roxburgh between 1780 and 1799, and that is the one you have found, mother Margaret Shiel. His age in 1851 is inconsistent with a birth in 1790, but his age in 1841 is consistent.
There are 23 Andrew Gibsons and 5 Archibald Gibsons aged 40 to 60 in the 1841 census in Scotland. There are 11 deaths of Andrew Gibsons born 1790 plus or minus 10 years, and two Archibalds, after 1855. Four of the Andrews and both Archibalds' mothers were not surnamed Shiel, but have you checked the other seven Andrews to make sure none of them was the one born in 1790 to Margaret Shiel?
-
Forfarian,
The nearest Archibald I have found is in Edinburgh born to Archibald Gibson and Grace Hogg (dob 3 July 1794). But I think that may be too far away for that time period as most were born/married/died in the same locality.
The problem is that I can't find a birth record for my Archibald, and need an accurate location to get a chance of locating one. With Andrew, as you have found, there are more than a few of them to trace. But however I have not got all of them yet I think.
Appreciate the help...Thanks
richard