My Perthshire Frasers .....

Joan · Post by **Joan** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:34 pm

Hi everyone, I’m after some advice again.

My Fraser side of the family is proving to be the worst side to research and also the most interesting.

My current problems are that I have traced my family back and have found a group of sisters all living in the same house and with a brood of illegitimate children.
Research so far shows
Barbara Fraser(c1813 - 1889) daughter Euphemia Allison (1838 B'gowrie)
son James Alison (1837 B'gowrie)

Euphemia Fraser (1819-1887) daughter Annie Ayson (1847 B'gowrie

Agnes Fraser (1815-1886) childless (I think)

Ann Fraser (1823 – 1896) son John Fraser (1843 B'gowrie)
son Robert Duncan then latterly Fraser(1849)
Elizabeth Duncan then latterly Fraser(1854)

The surnames for the respective illegitimate children were taken from the various census records, and death certificates. In all the census records 1841, 51, and 61 the sisters are shown as flax mill workers and from my research would appear to be living in a residential street surrounded by working folk. (A house of ill repute I’m afraid had sprung to my suspicious mind.) In the 1841 census they are living with their father and brother (Robert c1813), and later in 1851 their brother Robert is still with them.

Can anyone advise me on the following: if these sisters were all living together with their children is it likely that they will be mentioned in the kirk sessions records? If so what information do I need to access these?
If my suspicious mind has some foundation are there any records in existence from the police or councils of the day where such things may be mentioned?

My other dilemma concerns the parents of the sisters. On their death certificates the parents are usually given as John Fraser and either Mary Gow or Mary Bruce. A check on LDS revealed a record for John Fraser marrying a Mary Gow/Bruce at a date which is likely in 1792. I visited Perth on my last trip to Scotland and found that there no mention of Gow on the OPR marriage record. How did the LDS have the name Gow if it isn’t mentioned on the OPR? There is no mention of this record being part of someone’s tree.

Sorry this cry for help is so long but this part of my tree is driving me bonkers, I could fill pages with it and their strange aversion to registering anything, marrying or using the same name twice.
Thanks
Joan

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:53 pm

Hi Joan
I'm still taking in the rest but I noticed the marriage you mentioned on the LDS site:

JOHN FRAZER
Male
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriages:
Spouse: MARY GOW OR BRUCE
Marriage: 04 AUG 1792 Lethendy, Perth, Scotland

Form submitted by a member of the LDS Church.

So it looks like it has been a submitted entry which would explain why it didn't match exactly with what you saw in the OPR. It looks like someone else has come across the same problem as you have with the Gow/Bruce names.

best wishes
Lesley

Joan · Post by **Joan** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:10 pm

Lesley
Thanks for the quick reply, I was certain I had looked for someone having submitted it but obviously not well enough!
It leads me to another question however, why would someone submit just one form as when in the past if someone has posted their family tree on here it tells you, and lets you scroll the pedigree??
Thanks for pointing it out and I suppose I will continue to wait for my LDS to re-open to get an answer.
Joan

Joan · Post by **Joan** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:53 am

Lelsey
thanks again for looking. After you pointed out that a form had been submitted on LDS I looked again and was convinced I was either blind or senile. I have now checked some of the other siblings I was looking into and have found forms have been entered for those as well. I know senility is approaching fast but not that fast. I am desperate to find out who is submitting the forms, of course, but presume I will have to wait til my LDS re-opens. Thanks again cos if you hadn't checked that one I would never have thought to recheck them all
Joan

CatrionaL · Post by **CatrionaL** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:20 am

Joan

I've noticed that on the IGI there are two extracted LDS marriage for
John FRASER and Mary BRUCE

Date: 4 August 1801 Lethendy and Kinloch, Perth and 26 July 1801 Alyth, Perth

There is also a submitted entry that gives 2 August 1801 as the date.
This latter one is on the same batch N° as the submitted entry Lesley mentionned.

Catriona

Post by **joette** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:25 pm

Are we waiting for the same Family History Centre to reopen at South Ken?
It is doing my head in to use the venacular.I could use the one at Watford but the opening hours dont suit & its a pain to get to.
When it reopens let meet & compare notes on our Fraser girls who seem to have a fair sprinkling of hussies. What surprised me was the use of the Father's names in a small Farming community & that they stayed as neighbours & married other women.This is just one hussy who has four different surnames for her children,never marries & stays on the farm with the children & her parents.Maybe as she had three sons & her parents only one son this was the reason for their compliance & all the children are christened & with the Fathers names too.

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:27 pm

Hi Joan

is it likely that they will be mentioned in the kirk sessions records? If so what information do I need to access these?

The records are, I believe, in the process of being digitised - it is possible to view some of these on the PCs at NAS and I'm told the eventual aim is to have them online, but this could be a while. Not sure if ALL Kirk session records would have mentions of the kind of detail you are after - I've seen some that do, but I have not seen enough to know the proportion of those which give details of "goings-on" and those which just state the bare facts of having met and income generated, poor relief given etc. Sometimes even within the same parish there are time periods when detailed records are kept and then "bare patches" when only the necessary fatcs are stated - seems to depend on who was keeping the records at the time too.
At NAS ( http://www.dswebhosting.info/nas/ ) there is:
CH2/1462 Blairgowrie, Brown St Chapel, St Mary's, Kirk Session 1838-1968
The earlier records look like they are part of the OPRs...
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/opr_app2.pdf
gives the following for Blairgowrie in which you may just catch a couple of your girls, if they are mentioned:
335/3 Blairgowrie: Minutes and accounts 1737-81 accounts 1781-1820
335/5 Blairgowrie: Accounts 1820-37

...so it looks like the records for the period you are interested in might be spread across the OPRs and at NAS, and I'm not sure if there is any other way to see them just now other than visiting Edinburgh. I've also made the assumption it is Blairgowrie!!
Best wishes
Lesley

Joan · Post by **Joan** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:35 pm

Lesley
Thanks for the help. I have just returned from Edinburgh and looked at all the Blairgowrie church records I could lay my hands on. I can now tell you the cost of a new pew, what roofing tiles were used on the manse but little else. The records they hold all relate to the financial aspects of the church(es) and nothing else which was very disappointing.
My work colleague is also addicted to family research, as as we travelled north I told her where I was going. She has Scottish ancestry and decided to look at her relevant kirk session material. She managed to find a mass of material (her ancestor had four illegitimate chldren to four different men, after her third dressing down the birth of the fourth child meant she was sent off to the head church in Brechin for them to deal with her. Colleague ran out of time to look for this but intends to return to Edinburgh in the New Year as she is desperate to find it.) Although I was happy with her success to say I was green with envy is an understatement.
Again thank you for you help
Joan

Post by **AndrewP** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:54 pm

Hi Joan,

As you have found by your experience, with the Kirk Session records, it is a bit of a lottery. Some are full of women being called in to apologise for the dreadful sin they have committed with a man

, whereas others are little more than a record of church business meetings

.

All the best,

Andrew Paterson

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:06 pm

Joan
I'm so sorry you didn't find anything interesting but maybe Blairgowrie weren't so hung up about what their parishoners were doing in their spare time.

You could see this as a good thing... maybe your girls were able to get on with their lives without too much hassle from the kirk.

...though I can quite understand your disappointment, especially having travelled all that way - a few insights into their lives would have been fascinating!

Best wishes
Lesley