10
Banffshire / dating conundrum
« on: Wednesday 01 November 17 23:09 GMT (UK) »
Hi all:
I've posted about this person a few times before so forgive the obsession. I get new information and it presents me with new puzzles.
William Riddoch's parish birth record says he was born on February 23, 1851. He is the “natural son” of Alexander Riddoch and Jean Pirie, so illegitimate. His death certificate (in Canada) says he was born on February 23, 1854. The default theory is that the 1851 date is correct, BUT:
I've posted about this person a few times before so forgive the obsession. I get new information and it presents me with new puzzles.
William Riddoch's parish birth record says he was born on February 23, 1851. He is the “natural son” of Alexander Riddoch and Jean Pirie, so illegitimate. His death certificate (in Canada) says he was born on February 23, 1854. The default theory is that the 1851 date is correct, BUT:
- The parish record page has other entries dating from 1843 through 1854, but not in chronological order, suggesting they were copied from another source. Copyists can make mistakes.
I can find a census entry for Jean Pirie on 31 March 1851, but 5-week-old William is not with her
I now have an excerpt from the Alvah kirk session on 2 May 1852 where Jean Pirie accuses Alexander Riddoch of being the father of her child. Alexander sends a letter on 16 May that says he accepts paternity. He appears on December 26 in person to acknowledge paternity and, at some point later, he scarpered for the U.S. where he started another family in California.
It seems odd to me that Jean Pirie would have waited 15 months after William’s birth to accuse Alexander.
Would the source of the parish record name Alexander the father before the fact had been acknowledged in the kirk session? (I suppose the record could have been emended when it was copied to reflect the new paternity fact, though).
1) Could the date be a mistake and William was born in February 1852?
a) that’s why he’s not in the census.
b) then Jean accused Alexander when William was just under 3 months, not 15 months.
2) Or do you think that the 1851 date is still preferred-- given that is what was recorded?
Not sure if there is much more evidence around to get. I need his birthdate for a headstone