Odd Reference

[Pandabean]

I just did a search on a McDonald that I was looking for and came across this in the OPRs:

1 21/11/1850 MCDONALD JOHN JAMES MCDONALD/MARGARET REID FR3696 CHILD 1 M BARONY GLASGOW CITY/LANARK

I have never seen that before, Child 1 listed under the Frame number. Anyone got any ideas?

Cheers,
Andy

[LesleyB]

Hi Andy
I've seen it before on OPR index items. I expect the child may well be listed as that, i.e. the first child to the couple, on the OPR page - only way to find out for sure would be to view it, as I can't now remember which one of my lot I had this happen with!!

Best wishes
Lesley

[Pandabean]

Hi Lesley,

But the child's name is given. Im off to top up my SP account. So will let you know what happens.

Thanks

Hi Andy
I've seen it before on OPR index items. I expect the child may well be listed as that, i.e. the first child to the couple, on the OPR page - only way to find out for sure would be to view it, as I can't now remember which one of my lot I had this happen with!!

Best wishes
Lesley

[Pandabean]

Yup you were right.

.....had a lawful son, their first child......

[LesleyB]

Oh doncha just love those Session Clerks who were thoughtful enough to put in these little extra bits for us! If only all of them had been so forward thinking and could see us lot coming in a couple of hundred years time!

[Anne H]

I've had a few where the Session Clerk has very kindly listed the children. I had one unexpectedly turn up being born in Shotts instead of in Polmont where the rest of the children were born. This one told me the child Janet Allan was their fifth child...sure enough when I looked on the 1841 census she was indeed the fifth child

Loved that Session clerk.

Regards,
Anne H

[emanday]

It could also apply to where two children were born (i.e. twins) but one died before baptism.

One of my OPR's shows the same thing "Child 1", but the next entry shows "Child 2" who I'd not known about as she never appeared on the later censuses. I assume that she died in infancy.

A later OPR for the same parents shows Child 1 & Child 2 (runs in the family, don'tcha know but my Mum was the last twin - so far [-o< ), both of whom I had known about as they lived to marry and raise their own families (Me being a descendant of one of them ).

[Alan SHARP]

Greetings

For those of us who have researched the orginal Cathcart church records c1820's will be aware, that atleast for a period, they were recorded as 1st, 2nd 3rd, etc child of; instead of the more common lawful child (son/daughter) of. It has been a great help when families were moving around between parishes and there appeares to be a large gap in births, one can find for a couple. It can indicate you have missed one.

The practise however has also created a problem for the IGI emumerators who feel obliged to fill all boxes on their transcript forms, and take it upon themselves to assign gender. In the case of a MUNRO family they got it wrong twice, with repercussions to quite recent times re voting entitlements and property. (Don't call your daughter Marshal or Geils/Giles)

From the above posts it appears that Barony was another place where this method of recording was practised for a while.

Alan.

[Montrose Budie]

In a limited number of OPR records, particularly in the 1800s, and the most often the cities and main towns, it was the practice for the number of the child to be given, i.e., 1st, 4th, 10th or whatever ...........

mb