Incest or just being polite.....

[And It Makes Me Shine]

Dont know if I really want the answer to this one or not
My ggg Grandfather William Gallacher has a nephew and a niece in his household in the 1871 Census. The same children are with Williams Sister Susan in 1881 and relationship is stated as Lodgers to Susan being head lodger. This got my Credit Card twitching and onto Scotlandspeople I went.


The two childrens birth certifcates were found.


The first Margory Gallacher was born in Stonehouse (strange in itself as no one has been found there ever in my tree) the details show Father: William Gallacher, Mother Susan Gallacher maiden name Gallacher.

The second child William was born stating Illegitimate with just mothers details and down as widow. This birth was in a place called bannersland in coatbridge. The strange thing being that the birth registered before this one was for the exact same place on the same date but a completely different child and mother again illegitimate.


There are no other Williams in the picture in this time apart from Susans brother and Father. Was it the polite thing to do when registering a child so as to keep the illegitimate tag of or was it more sinister?

[nelmit]

Dont know if I really want the answer to this one or not
My ggg Grandfather William Gallacher has a nephew and a niece in his household in the 1871 Census. The same children are with Williams Sister Susan in 1881 and relationship is stated as Lodgers to Susan being head lodger. This got my Credit Card twitching and onto Scotlandspeople I went.

The two childrens birth certifcates were found.

The first Margory Gallacher was born in Stonehouse (strange in itself as no one has been found there ever in my tree) the details show Father: William Gallacher, Mother Susan Gallacher maiden name Gallacher.

The second child William was born stating Illegitimate with just mothers details and down as widow. This birth was in a place called bannersland in coatbridge. The strange thing being that the birth registered before this one was for the exact same place on the same date but a completely different child and mother again illegitimate.


There are no other Williams in the picture in this time apart from Susans brother and Father. Was it the polite thing to do when registering a child so as to keep the illegitimate tag of or was it more sinister?

Hello,
According to the IGI there were four children born to this couple.

You searched for: Father: William Gallacher, Mother: Susan Gallacher

1. MARGARY GALLAGHAR - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Birth: 07 DEC 1862 Stonehouse, Lanark, Scotland

2. MARIA GALLAHER - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Birth: 27 JAN 1865 Hamilton, Lanark, Scotland

3. WILLIAM GALLAGHER - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Birth: 17 APR 1864 0015, Belleek, Fermanagh, Ireland

4. PATRICK GALLAGHER - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Birth: 24 AUG 1869 , Fermanagh, Ireland


Regards,
Annette M

[joette]

Are they together on the 1891 too?
Do you have Marriage/Death for either children-if you do what does it say
about parentage there?
I would have thought with the children being registered as illegitimate that you would not want to further scandalise the situation by naming your Father/brother as the Father.
Is it possible that Susan was in fact a step-sister ie no blood tie or even a different Susan?William Gallacher is not that uncommon a name & a coincedence that it is the same as her Father/Brother.
I don't think I would want to know either.I know my Granny had two friends who were abused by family members & even after one was married her Father would still come around pounding on her door when her husband was not around-my Granny soon "put his gas on a peep"
She had one very disabled child which was her Father's & she was villified for being a "loose woman" when in fact her Father was systematically abusing all his children-sons too.At least two of the daughters had children by him & it was assumed that the children were to blame!
At about the same period my G-Grandfather & his neighbours "sorted out" a similiar situation.The Father was jailed for his cruelty to Wife & children but I guess the sexual element was hushed up.
Whilst researching in the archives about this case I came across numerous refs to sexual abuse-lewd behaviour to underage girls was how it was usually described & men were prosecuted for this & imprisoned which surprised me-c 1913.

[StewL]

Joette

The first act of parliament (1889) for the prevention of cruelty to children, commonly known as the "children's charter" was passed. This enabled the state to intervene, for the first time, in relations between parents and children. Police could arrest anyone found ill-treating a child, and enter a home if a child was thought to be in danger. The act included guidelines on the employment of children and outlawed begging.

1894 The act was amended and extended. It allowed children to give evidence in court, mental cruelty was recognised and it became an offence to deny a sick child medical attention.

The Children's Act 1908 established juvenile courts and introduced the registration of foster parents. The Punishment of Incest Act made sexual abuse within families a matter for state jurisdiction rather than intervention by the clergy.

So prior to 1908 acts of incest were a matter for the kirk, and what intervention or punishments were handed out is a debatable point. Unfortunately it is my opinion that this behaviour would rarely have seen the light of day outside the home, and if it was, the children would often get the blame. Which reminds me of the excuses current child sexual abusers use. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


I did have more information on this subject from my studies, but unfortunately lost it when my hard drive fried last year

[And It Makes Me Shine]

This is where it gets confusing.
Susans brother and Father were both called William.
Her brother William married a Susan and Maria on the IGI is they'res.
The two from Ireland are not mine

Margory was born in Stonehouse in 1861 there was not one Gallacher in Stonehouse in the 61 Census. I know just about every William Gallacher in Lanark due to the problems finding them I have spent more credits on this name than any other. Susan is in 1841 and 1851 Census with her family and stated as daughter to william.

I am wondering if the brother or father came to register the birth to save on Embarresment and to stop the dreaded illegitimate being put on the BC.

Under the parents details there is also something else written that looks like April 1852 for the marriage date. I have uploaded the image can anyone tell me what it says after that.

http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... p?pos=-694

Gallery URL added - AndrewP

[AndrewP]

Under the parents details there is also something else written that looks like April 1852 for the marriage date. I have uploaded the image can anyone tell me what it says after that.

It should be the place of marriage. It appears to say Bart or Baxt, but I cannot think where that is or should be.

Any other ideas out there?

All the best,

AndrewP

[momat]

I think I would be trying to establish what this BANNERLAND was if there were two illiegitimate births on the same page !

Maybe it was a home for unmarried mother's.
Does it have a street address on it?

[And It Makes Me Shine]

My mistake it actually says Bannons Land Coatbridge. It was a place in Coatbridge but no other details are given on the BC.

[joette]

Stew said"So prior to 1908 acts of incest were a matter for the kirk, and what intervention or punishments were handed out is a debatable point. Unfortunately it is my opinion that this behaviour would rarely have seen the light of day outside the home, and if it was, the children would often get the blame. Which reminds me of the excuses current child sexual abusers use. "
This makes more sense of what I read in the Archives.It mentioned in at least two cases over a twelve month period that the parents were being punished under "the new Act"
Even in these enlightened times I know that children are often blamed????!!!! for their abuse-that they have caused all this hassle & hurt for the family & where it is incest the children are often removed from the home rather than the perp which must compound the feelings of guilt that they often have.
Can you imagine with all the knowledge we have & the scale of abuse perpetrated by the Clergy them being left to sort out an incest case.
Whilst I do not condone or even believe it is the best road to take I can fully understand the mentality of "Close Justice"-if somebody was found to have "interfered" with a child & the Police were coming to get him all the doors up a close were knocked & he would be taken to the top floor & then made to run the gauntlet of outraged Mothers up the close right to the bottom close.!The Police would then tell their sergeant that "the wimmen got their first"
I have heard this from three different sources & I believe it's veracity.
I have also heard of Grandparents registering Grandchildren as their own,even Grannies faking "Change pregnancies".
I guess we just do not understand how big a stigma it was in some areas.
Never stopped most of my lines having a fair bit of them though & it must have been less of a stigma in rural areas or maybe there was just less to keep them occupied!

[Merlot]

Hi,


Had a look for Bannersland and found this:-


Manse St Bannans Land OLD MONKLAND (MIDDLE OR COATBRIDGE) Lanarkshire 652/2


Merlot