Relative in Stuartfield

[Fogmoose]

Great work as always, Ruth!

I hadn't had a chance yet to go forward, as I was going backward first. I have found Alexander Dalgardno's family in the 1871, 1861, 1851 and 1841 census. All in Fraserburgh; his father Joseph is a Pilot / later a Fisherman. His mother is Anne Robertson;  His parents were married in 1825 in Rathen, where his father was born circa 1807. I can find two brothers and a sister's birth but nothing for Joseph. His parents appear to be James and Anne Lawrence. I think I found his fathers death in St. Machar in 1900, age listed as 87 which has to be wrong unless he was 12 years old when married! Ages are all over the place in the different censuses for Joseph and Alexander, which is not unusual I know.

Alexander had at least 6 or 7 siblings, births going back as far as 1828.  Only three in the OPR though, and nothing for Alexander, best I can guess he was born sometime around 1845.


Thanks for the help again Ruth!

Quite a story! Who needs Hollywood movies when we have family history!

;-)

[ruthhelen]

His parents appear to be James and Anne Lawrence.

I think that may be the wrong Joseph Dalgarno - the Joseph Dalgarno who was married to Anna Robertson died in 1880 in Fraserburgh - his parents are noted as James Dalgarno, shoemaker and Helen Hay. The age at death appears to say 56, which can't possibly be correct, but the address of Shore Street, Fraserburgh and his wife's name (she died in 1892) all match with census data. The death was registered by his daughter Christian Gordon (nee Dalgarno).

James Dalgarno and Helen Hay married in 1801 in Lonmay, and had twin sons, Joseph and John, baptised in Lonmay in 1802.

Ruth

[Fogmoose]

Goes to show you should never assume anything...I saw that death of Joseph age 56 and discounted it due to the age, I should have checked it first since the location is correct. Obviously the age was miss-written or the daughter seriously misled about her fathers age. He was 20 years older!
The 1880 date fits in better with the facts as well. That could well be just about the time Alexander became resident in the poorhouse.

Thanks for the correction, as always!

[Fogmoose]

Have been reading the excellent "Scottish Genealogy" by Bruce Durie. 

He mentions that "Dressmaker" was sometimes given as occupation as a euphemism for prostitute in the census! Would this apply to Birth registrations as well? Has anyone run into this in their research?

Quite interesting, because the birth registration for Jane Hutcheon's first illegitimate child in 1870 lists her occupation as "Dressmaker" !

Coincidence ?

[Fogmoose]

Not wishing to add to the confusion, but I think your Jane/Jean Hutcheon may have had another illegitimate child...  There is a William Hutcheon, aged 6 with her in the poor house in 1881. This William Hutcheon was born in 1874 in Millbrex to Jane Hutcheon, domestic servant. She successfully filed a paternity suit in 1876 against the child’s father, Jonathan Marnoch, farm servant at Haddo House, Methlick.

She presumably didn't get any money out of him, otherwise she and William wouldn't have been in the poor house in 1881, I guess  Can't find any trace of William after that though...

Ruth

At first I thought you were right, couldn't find him after 1881 census. Found 2 deaths approximately correct age but neither was him. After digging around a little more, I found the correct DC in Ellon (which makes sense since Jane's last address was Ythan Bank, Ellon) from 1946 (2 years after his mothers death). Appears he married a Margaret Stuart in 1901 in Milltown of Rothiemay. She apparently survived him. Haven't looked for any children yet. Strangely, on the marriage certificate his name is William Marnoch (no mention of Hutcheon), yet the certificate is filed under William Hutcheon.

So, so far I have found that at least 5 of Jane's 6 offspring (that I have found so far...there still could be more) survived into adulthood. Only one I haven't is George Davidson....haven't found his father either. BTW for anyone following this thread, through DNA matching I have contacted relations through the Arthur Keith line, so am now nearly 100% certain that Arthur Keith was indeed Alexander Keith Hutcheon's father.

[Fogmoose]

I have a (perhaps wild) theory that Jean/Jane Fowlie may actually have been the granddaughter (or other relative) of William Greig, who he adopted, and not related to Jane/Jean Greig (nee Yeats) at all.

Jane Fowlie died in 1873 in Methlick, where she is noted as being a sick nurse, unmarried and illegitimate. Her reputed father is one Thomas Fowlie, crofter, and her mother is noted as  ‘? Greig, afterwards married to ? Ferguson, shoemaker’. And just to add to the intrigue, her death was registered by one Alexander Hutcheon, undertaker in New Deer - no relationship given... 

Now, a Christian Greig married an Andrew Ferguson in New Deer in 1827 - which was after the birth of Jane Fowlie who, if her age at death is to be believed, was born about 1823. Unfortunately, I can’t find any trace of Andrew Ferguson or Christian Greig after that.

Back to William Greig - he married Jane Yeats in New Deer in 1816 - which would have made him about 46 (and her 41) - old for a first marriage, so it’s perfectly possible he was married previously. Unfortunately, I can’t find any obvious previous marriage, or a birth for Christian Greig, so this remains, alas, only a theory… 

Ruth

Well, three years later and after having a go at the newly available Kirk Session records from New Deer...it seems Ruth was correct! In fact not only was William Greig married before, but he apparently could'nt wait until his wife was in the ground before he got his soon-to-be second wife pregnant!

From the August 15th, 1816 New Deer KS record :

"William Greig in Stevensburn and his wife Jane Yeats, who were married on the 25th of January last and had a child brought forth on the 29th of May, the said Greig's former wife having been buried the day before DunstansFair of Old Deer last winter, being little more than five months before the birth of the child, and this being a case of adultery offended with aggravating circumstances aknowledged themselves guilty, are cited APUD ACTA to compear before the preysbytery to meet at Fraserburgh on Wednesday the 28th to whom the session refer the matter."

Sadly there is no mention of the childs name, the former wifes name, where she was buried or such. Nor was I able to find anything corresponding in the Fraserburgh Kirk records (question for those of you with more knowledge than I, why would they have referred it to Fraserburgh?). But still quite a bit of interesting information! I have several possibles for the first wife, as they appear to have had at least one son James who was old enough to be accused himself of adultery in 1822, but thats another story I'm still working on. It's quite complicated, but I'll go into that another time. These kirk session records are an awesome resource! 

Best to all!


Fogmoose

[Forfarian]

Nor was I able to find anything corresponding in the Fraserburgh Kirk records (question for those of you with more knowledge than I, why would they have referred it to Fraserburgh?).

They didn't refer it to the Kirk Session of Fraserburgh. They referred it to the Presbytery of Fraserburgh, to which New Deer belonged.

The Presbytery is the next tier up of the organisation of the kirk, consisting of the ministers of all the congregations in the Presbytery, plus representative elders from the Kirk Sessions (one elder per KS, or perhaps not quite so many).

It was standard practice to refer cases of adultery to the Presbytery, because adultery was a more heinous sin than mere fornication. Occasionally a pair of sinners would be summoned to appear before a meeting of the Presbtery, but mostly the Presbytery just talked about the case and remitted it back to the KS to deal with.

It looks as if the records of the Presbytery of Fraserburgh are no longer extant.

[Fogmoose]

Ahhh, I understand. Thanks Forfarian. I should have caught that one myself but my eyes are bleery from perusing all these new records LOL!

BTW I found a later entry from I believe 1818 New Deer KS  that the said Greig and Yeats had been absolved and allowed back into good graces after the Preysbytery remitted the matter back to the Kirk. So you are correct as it appears they didnt have to actually appear before the higher body, but were instead kept in "scandal" for a pretty long while. LOL Scandal doesnt mean as much these days I suppose, though I submit that Grieg fooling around while his poor wife was on her death-bed is still pretty grievous even today! At least he did marry her, ha ha.

[Forfarian]

Yes.

My great-great-great-grandfather and his next-door neighbour were summoned by the KS, who "deferred the further consideration of it so it should be ascertained whether or not it be a case of adultery". That is, they waited for the baby to be born so that they could work out whether or not it was conceived before the death of my great-great-great-grandmother.

The really annoying bit is that I can't find any evidence that it was ever actually ascertained!

But they were summoned again for fornication five years later, and I have found no evidence that any of their four children was legitimate.