Illegitimate?

[trish1]

I downloaded a baptism from 1802 - the page contains about 6 items - most are of the format

NNNN(father) - had a child by his wife xxxxx (mother) baptized and named zzzzzz (child)

My baptism of interest on the page does NOT include the words " his wife". I haven't found a marriage - do I assume there was none? This would be the nicest format I have ever seen to distinguish between legitimate/illegitimate. I usually read fire and brimstone to the poor mother.

Trish

[Currie]

Hello Trish,

I just did a Google for similar wording, i.e. without mention of a wife, and nothing much came up except yours and one by the Corporal of Marines from Rathven in the year 1800, and that’s amidst all the ‘his wife’ ones. There are possibly others scattered through the Rathven transcriptions. http://www.google.com.au/webhp?complete ... 15cf9557a8

All the best,
Alan

[Headley]

Hi Trish,

I have had a similar experience and it took me a while to pick up that the word 'wife' was missing from the entry I was interested in (and was used in all entries on the rest of the page) - King Edward in 1814. Again, I could find no marriage entries except for one ten years later to another woman - which led me back to looking at the birth entry again where I noticed the word wife was missing.

In my case I was looking at an illegitimate son who was a direct anscestor, and I was fortunate enough to find that his father had left a will when he died in 1833. In his will he left his 'natural' son thirty pounds (to learn a trade). My research showed me that the term 'natural' was used to mean illegitimate so it confirmed what I had found earlier.



Cheers

Headley.

[trish1]

Thanks Alan and Headley

It probably does equal illegitimate - being so clearly omitted among the other "his wife" entries. Not sure that I will ever prove same. I do find it interesting that in my case and the one Alan found the child was given the father's name.

Trish

[LesleyB]

Hi Trish

Not sure that I will ever prove same.

The Kirk Session records may have some documentation, if they have survived for the parish you are interested in.

I do find it interesting that in my case and the one Alan found the child was given the father's name.

It seemed to be pretty standard practice to name an illegitimate child after the father in one way or anther, either by use of his first name, his surname or both.

best wishes
Lesley

[trish1]

Hi Lesley - I have been used to seeing the father's name as a middle name - but other than Scotland, I don't think I have ever seen the father's surname given as a surname on illegitimate births/baptisms. Alot of my research is in England & Australia - and they mostly seemed to insist on marriage to use a father's surname as a surname.

Scotland has/had some concepts somewhat different to other places I research - I have always been fascinated by irrelgular marriages and now this option - They seemed to be rather ahead of their time in a such a liberal approach to family - impressive.

Trish