More Stewart questions!

[annstewartplude]

I have looked through the forum, and although there are several thousand Stewart topics- I haven't seen my answer yet.
Please redirect, if it's been covered!
I have a marriage cert for Peter Stewart & Margaret Forbes for 5 Dec 1856
It lists their ages as 37 & 25, respectively.
This would put Peter being born in 1819.
His Parents are named on the marriage cert. as Duncan & Christian Robertson.
~I have found THEIR marriage banns (22 Jan 1800) as well as 2 subsequent birth records- John in 1801 & Alexander in 1806.
No mention of Peter.
Anyone have information on my missing family member!?
Perhaps I have the wrong Duncan & Christy- there are hundreds! 

[eilthireach]

The more you search in the historical records, the more instances you'll find of parents who didn't - or weren't always able to - get all of their children baptised. Circumstances didn't always come together to make it happen. Maybe family circumstances were just not right at the appropriate time, maybe the minister wasn't available when they were thinking about it and then they just didn't follow up on it. I had a look online in the OPRs within the county (using P (Name starts with, so that it would pick up a Patrick, and Duncan (Father) and Ch (Mother)) and then all counties, but nothing came up, so it looks as if your Peter's birth/baptism was one of those that just slipped through the cracks.

You should -always- bear in mind, that the age someone gives is what they thought they were. Even if the person had been told the date of their birthday, they weren't always great at mental arithmetic. People didn't celebrate birthdays in those days. They had more immediate concerns than something like that - a roof over their head, food, finances, and, if they derived their living from the land, the weather, the seasons, and certainly not birthdays ...

[GR2]

The more you search in the historical records, the more instances you'll find of parents who didn't - or weren't always able to - get all of their children baptised.

When no record of a baptism appears, it is far more likely that the child was baptised, but the baptism wasn't recorded, or the record has not survived.

Have you traced Peter in the 1841 and 1851 censuses? There is always the possibility that he might be living with his parents then, depending on circumstances, for example working on his parents' farm.

[Neale1961]

When no record of a baptism appears, it is far more likely that the child was baptised, but the baptism wasn't recorded, or the record has not survived.

I agree with GR2. The link below explains difficulties with old parish registers.
https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/guides/church-registers

-------------
In the 1871 census your Peter Stewart age 53, a Tailor, was born in Blair Atholl.

Although there is no baptism record for him you have his parents marriage in Blair Atholl in 1800, and baptism records for 2 sons John (1801) and Alexander (1806). What information is recorded on those records?

I think this is Peter's family in the census ……

1851 census. Bridge of Fender, Blair Atholl
https://www.freecen.org.uk/search_records/5a1541dbf4040b9d6e52b871/christian-stewart-1851-perthshire-blair-atholl-1780-?locale=en

1841 census Bridge Of Fender, Blair Atholl
Christian Stewart 59    (We assume that husband Duncan died before 1841)
Alexander Stewart 31, Duncan Stewart 32, John Stewart 17

1861 census Bridge of Fender, Blair Atholl
Christian Stewart 82 born Blair Atholl, Mason’s widow
Alexander Stewart 50 son, born Blair Atholl ,Mason
Duncan Stewart 46 son, born Blair Atholl, Mason
Jane Stewart 40 daughter, former house maid, born Blair Atholl


Christian (Robertson) STEWART died in Blair Atholl in 1864, age 87. Her death certificate hopefully will give you some more information.

By the way - Welcome to RootsChat. 

[eilthireach]

 "it is far more likely that the child was baptised, but the baptism wasn't recorded, or the record has not survived.". No, it is not "far more likely"! Yes, it's perfectly possible that the session clerk omitted to record the event, but you simply cannot make a statement like that. You just can't!

[annstewartplude]

In the 1871 census your Peter Stewart age 53, a Tailor, was born in Blair Atholl.
~ "Peter the Elder" Has been found in 41, 61, 71 & 81 census'.

His brother's baptism entries- as well as the details of the 41 census have them living in Grennich, Blair Atholl.

I haven't yet found this family in the 51 census- but by 61 census Peter was married, with children, in Logierait.

~My Peter was a tailor- The Bridge of Fender family were masons.

Christian (Robertson) STEWART died in Blair Atholl in 1864, age 87. Her death certificate hopefully will give you some more information.
~ I did pull her death cert. Her husband's name was Peter! (Why do they all have the same names??? haha) Not MY Christian

By the way - Welcome to RootsChat. 
[/quote]

Thank you for the welcome! And all the helpful information. I believe I am satisfied I have the correct Peter- now to Verify his father- Duncan! 

[Rosinish]

Welcome to RC!

You might find this site useful...

http://www.borenich.co.uk/


Annie

[GR2]

"it is far more likely that the child was baptised, but the baptism wasn't recorded, or the record has not survived.". No, it is not "far more likely"! Yes, it's perfectly possible that the session clerk omitted to record the event, but you simply cannot make a statement like that. You just can't!

The elders and minister of the parish would inquire into why children hadn't been presented for baptism. In the Old Statistical Account, ministers comment on gaps in baptism registers and make the point that not all baptisms had been recorded. During the period when there was a 3d tax on entries in the baptism register, ministers noted that it put some people off having a record made, it did not put them off having their children baptised. In the 17th and early 18th centuries, when failure to have your child baptised would mean being summoned before the kirk session, and referred to the presbytery if you refused, there are many unrecorded baptisms in the registers. You also see a rush of parents in 1854 (because of the coming of statutory birth registration) to have earlier baptisms (sometimes much earlier) recorded in the kirk register.

[eilthireach]

"it is far more likely that the child was baptised, but the baptism wasn't recorded, or the record has not survived.". No, it is not "far more likely"! Yes, it's perfectly possible that the session clerk omitted to record the event, but you simply cannot make a statement like that. You just can't!

The elders and minister of the parish would inquire into why children hadn't been presented for baptism. In the Old Statistical Account, ministers comment on gaps in baptism registers and make the point that not all baptisms had been recorded. During the period when there was a 3d tax on entries in the baptism register, ministers noted that it put some people off having a record made, it did not put them off having their children baptised. In the 17th and early 18th centuries, when failure to have your child baptised would mean being summoned before the kirk session, and referred to the presbytery if you refused, there are many unrecorded baptisms in the registers. You also see a rush of parents in 1854 (because of the coming of statutory birth registration) to have earlier baptisms (sometimes much earlier) recorded in the kirk register.

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill over this. The point I made was absolutely valid, whatever picture the authors (ministers) of the Old Statistical Account sought to paint as characteristic of the whole of Scotland historically and in their own time, I'm afraid the church did not have such power over the population of Scotland, especially in those areas where, later on, the people eventually joined the Free Church of Scotland and that became the predominant church in that area. It would simply have been completely impractical - impossible in fact - for the Church to pursue people, especially in the big cities and remote landward areas. Today and in the past, not everyone attended church. Records in some parts of Scotland didn't even begin until the early nineteenth century and no church would have had the policing powers needed to ensure that every child was baptised.