Who's the daddy.... Dewar/Sparks, Muirhead

[Eqcons]

My 3x Great grandmother was Catherine Dewar, b. About 1815. in Newburgh, Daughter of David Dewar and Sophia Law.

She had a son, Henry Dewar,  b. 21 12 1838, while the family were living in the hamlet of Muirhead (Kettle Parish).  Henry's birth entry in the OPR says:

"Henry, nat. [natural] child of David Dewar, labourer, Muirhead [Kettle] and of Cath. Dewar also residing there"

"Natural" of course, means illegitimate.  That's where the confusion comes in.   Her father was, of course, called David Dewar, but she had a brother also called David Dewar, b. 6 8 1809 in Kilmany, so about six years Catherine's senior.  I can't find any sign of David junior having died between 1809 and Henry's birth in 1838, and he isn't in the household, according to the 1841 census.  The birth entry strongly suggests that Henry's father David must be a [close!] relative of Catherine's and Muirhead was a very small place.  Was it incest, perhaps?  David senior or junior the father? Or perhaps a cousin?

Looking at Henry's death certificate, (1923) no father is listed (!)  but his mother is listed as "Catherine Dewar, afterwards (i.e. after Henry's birth) married to James Spark", and lo and behold, on the same OPR page as Henry's birth, 1843 sees the birth of Sophia Sparks, "daughter of James Sparks, labourer, and Cath. Dewar his wife" followed by Catherine Sparks in 1845, and James Sparks in 1851.  James Spark(s) was 15 years older than Catherine, and also lived in the same tiny hamlet.   I read through a year or two's Kirk Session minutes, expecting to see the pair (Catherine, and Henry's father David) of them "compeared" but either they didn't go to church (or they were too scared to!) as there's no mention of either of them, amongst the many names listed as being compeared for the sin of antenuptual fornication!   I though for a bit the guilty party may have been her father, rather than her brother, but Henry's father was not listed as deceased, as is the norm, at his wedding to Isabella Sheath in 1860, and David senior died in 1859. On Henry's marriage certificate, Parents are listed as "David Dewar, General Labourer" and "Catherine Dewar, Maiden Name Sparks" - we know of course that her [later] married name was Sparks, not her maiden name, so a bit of economy with the real facts going on there, perhaps unsurprisingly.

Looking at some of the census entries for the family, Henry is listed as "Nephew" to David Dewar senior, but on David senior's death cert, Henry is the informant, and lists himself as "grandson", so definitely some more subterfuge going on!

Has anyone looked at this before, and come to a conclusion as to who Henry's father actually was?


 

[Forfarian]

The 'birth' (actually baptism) entry is the standard wording for baptisms of illegitimate children, and it does not suggest in any way, let alone suggest 'strongly', that it was a case of incest.

Fornication was a sin in the eyes of the church, but not illegal. Incest is a criminal offence. If the culprit was either Catherine's father or brother, there would have been criminal court proceedings.

You would need to track down the relevant Sheriff Court records. Start with the catalogues at https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/catalogues-and-indexes

It could be, of course, that the culprit was a cousin of some degree, in which case it would not have been incest. There are in the 1841 census 25 David Dewars of an age to be the father, of whom 6 were in Fife.

It looks as if David Dewar senior might have been the son of David Dewar and Margaret Hutson, baptised 1788 in Largo. This David Dewar had two brothers, James Durham and Andrew. Either of these could have had a son named David who would have been of an age to father Catherine's child.

The word 'nephew' was occasionally used in contexts where we would use 'grandson', so you cannot read anything into that. 

[Eqcons]

Thanks for your prompt reply, and input, Forfarian - much appreciated.

The 'birth' (actually baptism) entry is the standard wording for baptisms of illegitimate children, and it does not suggest in any way, let alone suggest 'strongly', that it was a case of incest.

Yes, I know it's standard wording - I've been doing this for over 50 years, and with nearly 6000 people in the tree I've worked on all this time, I've seen more that a few illegitimate entries.

Fornication was a sin in the eyes of the church, but not illegal. Incest is a criminal offence. If the culprit was either Catherine's father or brother, there would have been criminal court proceedings.

Indeed, after 1567, it passed from the domain of ecclesiastical law: "Before 1567, incest was regarded as an ecclesiastical offence, ”to be chastised with the weapons of spiritual censure” The Incest Act 1567 criminalised it.  However, there would only have been such proceedings in this case had it been revealed/admitted to be such.

You would need to track down the relevant Sheriff Court records. Start with the catalogues at https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/catalogues-and-indexes

Thanks for that - I'll have a look.  I'd already looked for an aliment decree (The court will be Cupar, I expect) but with no result.

It could be, of course, that the culprit was a cousin of some degree, in which case it would not have been incest.

Yes, you'll note I did say "Or perhaps a cousin?"

There are in the 1841 census 25 David Dewars of an age to be the father, of whom 6 were in Fife.
Yes, I'd checked that, the problem being that 1841 is two and a bit years after Henry's birth - any degree of movement of people, marriages, deaths is possible in that time.  The most significant thing is that the OPR entry says that both David and Catherine were living in Muirhead, which was a tiny place at that time.

It looks as if David Dewar senior might have been the son of David Dewar and Margaret Hutson, baptised 1788 in Largo.

That's correct, although she's more often listed as Hutchison and similar. I haven't found this David's birth/baptism (I count baptism as being near enough to the birth date generally, as the baptism entries don't always mention the actual date of birth) - thanks yet again for that, I'll investigate further.

This David Dewar had two brothers, James Durham and Andrew. Either of these could have had a son named David who would have been of an age to father Catherine's child.

Yes, especially if either brother's families were also in Muirhead.  I hadn't got as far as finding that David's siblings, so once again thanks - gives me more to look at! :-)

The word 'nephew' was occasionally used in contexts where we would use 'grandson', so you cannot read anything into that.

Good to know - I've never come across that before.  But that occurrence was just one of the vague descriptions of relationships in this situation, if you see what I mean.

Off to investigate further - many thanks for your help.