RootsChat.Com

Quote from: Guy Etchells on Wednesday 07 September 22 22:16 BST (UK)

Quote from: Forfarian on Wednesday 07 September 22 22:08 BST (UK)

Spot on.

The regulations stipulated that the name of the father of an illegitimate child could only be recorded on the child's birth certificate if the father accompanied the mother when she went to register the birth and signed the certificate alongside her.

Only from 1875

Not so.

That may have been the case in England and Wales, but the following is an extract from the text of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1854: XXXV. In the Case of an illegitimate Child it shall not be lawful for the Registrar to enter the Name of any Person as the Father of such Child, unless at the joint Request of the Mother and of the Person acknowledging himself to be the Father of such Child, and who shall in such Case sign the Register as Informant along with the Mother ....

Yes as I previously conceded (in answer to Lodger) I had made an error.

However how did the Scottish Registrar know if the couple was married as the was no necessity in law for the couple to have gone through any ceremony.
As Sir Patrick Ford said on the matter "The only difficulty is the proof and the Scottish law is very extraordinary with regard to that."
See also http://www.rootschat.com/links/01rtn/
Cheers
Guy

Spot on.

The regulations stipulated that the name of the father of an illegitimate child could only be recorded on the child's birth certificate if the father accompanied the mother when she went to register the birth and signed the certificate alongside her.

Only from 1875
Cheers
Guy

Deleted

Quote from: Guy Etchells on Tuesday 06 September 22 09:34 BST (UK)

I am a bit late in replying.

It is not essential at all as all testing companies give a short term subscription to their databases with the test kit.
This free subscription is long enough to dertmine if a long term membership would add any value to your research, or whether you would be better subscribing with a different company.
Cheers
Guy

Zaph

My view is the opposite to Guy’s.

A subscription for at least a year is essential if you are serious about finding Family via a DNA test.

Without the subscription then following up on all the DNA matches, using Common Ancestor hints, Shared Matches and Thrulines will be far more difficult.

Put a time value on the £90 using how much you get paid per hour and the subscription has to be great vfm.

I do not dispute that but most if not all DNA kits include a short membership to the companies datasets. For example Ancestry have 3 options available when purchasing a DNA test kit at present
1 A basic kit only offer (this used toto include 7 or 14 days membership but now does not) at 59 pounds
2 An enhance offer with 3 months worldwide membership for 60 pounds, i.e. 3months for £1
3 The basic offer plus Traits for an extra 9 pounds.

To my way of thinking the only one worth taking up is offer two which gives 3 months membership in the cost so no need to subsccribe for 3 months and possibly you will have exhausted all your links in that time or at least had the chance to decide if a membership is worthwhile.
This is why I say there is no need to subscribe as a short subscription wass and is still free or almost free when you buy the kit.
Cheers
Guy

This is what I see
Re: for the experts
« Reply #44 on: Today at 21:43:46 »
•   Quote
Reply 31
~~~~~~~~-------------------------------------------------------
Re: for the experts
« Reply #43 on: Today at 21:40:01 »
•   Quote
Quote from: River Tyne Lass on Today at 21:30:06
Guy, if that's what you and KGarrad see then we must be seeing different things.  I believe that you both see that on your screens but it is obviously showing differently to MS and myself.   
Your eyes definitely don't deceive you MS.

Weird.
~~~~~~~~----------------------------------------------------
Re: for the experts
« Reply #42 on: Today at 21:30:06 »
•   Quote
Guy, if that's what you and KGarrad see then we must be seeing different things.  I believe
~~~~~~~~------------------------------------------
Re: for the experts
« Reply #41 on: Today at 21:21:34 »
•   Quote
•   Modify
 Re: for the experts
« Reply #31 on: Today at 09:07:01 »
~~~~~~~~--------------------------------------------------
Re: for the experts
« Reply #40 on: Today at 21:17:27 »
•   Quote
Quote from: KGarrad on Today at 21:01:30
MS - I think the post you are referring to shows as reply #32 on my screen?

It's 31 on mine. By the original poster rpweedon. It was about the match in Virginia.

Re: for the experts
« Reply #39 on: Today at 21:15:32 »
•   Quote
I see same as MS reply 31 on my screen - in which RP refers to a named living person residing in Virginia.  Perhaps we are seeing different things. 

Re: for the experts
« Reply #38 on: Today at 21:01:30 »
•   Quote
MS - I think the post you are referring to shows as reply #32 on my screen?
Re: for the experts
« Reply #37 on: Today at 20:54:28 »
•   Quote
Quote from: Guy Etchells on Today at 20:32:22
Quote from: Maiden Stone on Today at 19:26:02

Re: for the experts
« Reply #36 on: Today at 20:32:22 »
•   Quote
•   Modify
Quote from: Maiden Stone on Today at 19:26:02
Reply #31. RootsChat discourages posting names of living people and other identifying information on the public forum. You should remove the name of your match.

Oh I am terribly sorry

Re: for the experts
« Reply #35 on: Today at 19:26:02 »
•   Quote
Reply #31. RootsChat discourages posting names of living people and other identifying information on the public forum. You should remove the name of your match.

Re: for the experts
« Reply #34 on: Today at 15:31:19 »
•   Quote
•   Modify
You asked for critical reviews of your genealogical sleuthing

Re: for the experts
« Reply #33 on: Today at 13:44:34 »
•   Quote
Hello Again Guy,

Re: for the experts
« Reply #32 on: Today at 13:34:43 »
•   Quote
Hello Guy

Thank you for your reply.

Re: for the experts
« Reply #31 on: Today at 09:07:01 »
•   Quote
•   Modify
Sorry for the delay.
Let me try to clarify the comments in my earlier post.