RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Seoras on Thursday 24 March 11 10:03 GMT (UK)
-
Puzzled a bit by this birth,begotten in fornication,which I presume means they were not married.However I have another birth for this couple three years earlier also begotten in fornication.Weren't the church preaching hell and damnation at this time (1738).Were couples just living together this early? both children receive baptism.It's Abercorn,Scotland,a tiny place even today.
George.
-
Yes, I believe it means they were illegitimate. Lovely turn of phrase. ;D
-
It seems to have been a family trait Ruskie,fornicating ;D
-
Hi George
On a recent thread it was stated that the Church was usually willing to baptise infants, whatever the circumstances of their birth. Presumably those born out of wedlock were deemed to be in even greater need of 'saving'?
Linda
-
It seems to have been a family trait Ruskie,fornicating ;D
I hesitate to ask - is it a current occupation?? :) :)
Linda
-
It seems to have been a family trait Ruskie,fornicating ;D
;D
-
Thanks Linda,all I am saying is even my grandfather was illigitimate so it's in the genes ;D
-
And my mother was 8 months pregnant with me when she married.It would appear I come from a long line of serial fornicators ;D ;D ;D
-
Better than serial killers!
I have read that in some areas it was common for the woman to be pregnant at the time of the marriage - possibly to prove that she could actually have children??
Linda
-
Hi Seoras
I found a whole raft of " begotten in fornication " in a parish on Anglesey, Wales. They were all illegitmate !!
The only time the vicar changed it slightly was when the said father died before the child was born.
It was down to the local vicar to decide if he felt that "begotten in fornication " was deemed necessary !
Nainmaddie
-
I have read that in some areas it was common for the woman to be pregnant at the time of the marriage - possibly to prove that she could actually have children??
I've heard that, too - and not just in Scotland. I believe there's somewhere in Sweden or Norway where it's a prerequisite for marriage that the bride-to-be must be pregnant, or the groom-to-be can legally postpone or cancel the wedding.
-
Ah I see an early form of test drive.Though in my original post he had been testing for 3 years and proved it worked twice :)
-
Ah I see an early form of test drive.
Wasn't that a practice in Ireland too? To make sure, as Deb suggested, that the lady was fertile enough to bear children !!
Dawn M
-
These are the days when it was always the 'ladies' fault if there were no babies. ;D
-
I believe the term is still used in parts of the Western Isles, no doubt after they had segregated the cocks from the hens to ensure they do not fornicate on the Sabbath!
-
Hi George
On a recent thread it was stated that the Church was usually willing to baptise infants, whatever the circumstances of their birth. Presumably those born out of wedlock were deemed to be in even greater need of 'saving'?
Linda
Under Ecclesiastical Law, a minister could not refuse, or delay to baptise any child.
" Canon 68: No minister shall refuse or delay to christen any child, according to the form of the Book of Common Prayer, that is brought to the church to him upon Sundays or holy days to be christened (convenient warning being given him thereof before) in such manner and form as is prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer; and if he shall refuse to christen, he shall be suspended by the bishop of the diocese from his ministry by the space of three months."
Today the requirements for the baptism of infants are now in Canons B21 to B23. If the requirements are met, the minister must baptise the child. If he declines or unduly delays, the parents or guardians may apply to the bishop for his direction.
Stan
-
Well as I said they had already done the same 3 years earlier (see below) and I suppose I should be glad they had another go as the second one is my line.Can't find a marriage or any other kids for these two though,perhaps they were banished ;D
George.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Google cant find an appropriate advert for this thread :) :) :) :) :)
Mazi's oh
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
At least they were more polite then Baptisums i found in Pembrokeshire PR`s
They were bxxtard son or daughter of so & so. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Nearly feel off the chair laughing.
In Sussex PRs its baseborn.
My daughter gave me a fridge magnet.My family tree is full of nuts.
It should be my family tree is full of fornicaters ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
omega
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I can imagine the sermon at the baptism.
The first document has proved interesting and informative though.Alexander's birth is witnessed by a James Stewart.Immediately underneath that the birth of this James Stewart and his wife Elizabeth's child is witnessed by the father of the girl that would eventually marry this Alexander.James Stewart was a gardener at Hopetoun House and the 7th Earl of Hopetoun was the first Governor General of Australia.So they were fornicating in good company ;D
George.
-
There are many other English words and phrases used in the records: base; baseborn; begotten in fornication; by-blow; child of shame; lovechild; merrybegot; , merry begotten; misbegotten; ill begotten; lanebegot; scapebegotten; basterino; chanceling; whoreson; spurious; nothus; viciatus;
In Latin there are filius nullius (son of none - the girl did not know or want to say); filius populi (son of the people - anyone's guess); filius meretricis (son of a prostitute).
Stan
-
Hi Stan
Was it you who recently posted the entries for serial bastards of one woman, and the vicar's comments? :)
I can't find it - and I think it would bear repeating here. It certainly made me laugh!
Linda
-
And 'fore nooners' as my Grandad jokingly called the children born before their parents married - there were (are) more than enough of them in his family, and he nearly made one himself, too ;)
-
'fore nooners'
;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Stan
Was it you who recently posted the entries for serial bastards of one woman, and the vicar's comments? :)
I can't find it - and I think it would bear repeating here. It certainly made me laugh!
Linda
This was it;
From a Parish Baptism register
- natural child of Mary X
- base born child of Mary X
- illegitimate child of Mary X
- another of Mary X's bastards
The parish priest/clerk was obviously getting a bit fed up. :)
Stan
-
;D ;D ;D nice one Stan,started my day with a giggle anyway.
George.
-
Thanks Stan :)
Linda
-
Stan's interesting reply has set me on a slight tangent, remember the story of the twin founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus, the sons of a she wolf,(lupa). I believe the story! Why? In Italian and Latin the word lupa has at least two meanings 1) a she wolf 2) a prostitute. If I re-write my sentence as --- the story of the twin founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus, the sons of a prostitute I think the legend becomes a lot clearer. Sorry to digress.
-
It was an interesting digression though RR :)
-
Thanks George, On my mother's side there are several instances of the marriage just beating the baptism, sufficient to produce the phrase "Born in the vestry!" Interestingly they were strict Baptists in a small rural community, like you I imagine the sermons were interesting.
-
Hi RR,I have one where the birth was in October,the marriage in November and Baptism in December.I think people were much more hands on than we were taught ;D
By the way the original Alexander begotten of fornication did make it to the alter before he began begatting.
George.
-
I like the legibility of the copperplate handwriting George, suggests to me that Scottish education was superior then too!
I think the Victorian values of prudery and hypocrisy rammed down out throats by the so called moral majority have much to do with the hang ups.
-
Too right RR,especially when you think of the unspeakable things that were happening to children at the hands of some of the Victorian moral majority.
As to the cpperplate,yes I have had some lovely examples,some from Fife that was quite beautiful and easy to read.
George.
-
Many societies have a fixation about "the abled bodied poor" "lazy benefit scroungers" etc. etc. Too frequently many of these people are the same as those who are ultra relgious, purer than use etc. etc. and have large families. Unfortunately they are blind to the fact that large families in this modern age are only adding to the world's problem of over population.
-
People have always had sex - otherwise none of us would be here. In the days before reliable contraception, people chose between abstinence and "fornication". I doubt if anyone has a family tree with no illegitimate births - and its very common for a married couple's first child to be baptised within less than 9 months of the wedding.
I'm not sure why there's an idea that our ancestors were much more moral and virtuous than we are.
-
What an interesting thread this is to be sure - makes me feel quite at home in our family now!!
I do like the 'try before you buy theory' too - makes sense doesn't it!!
If I were to choose between those names of out of wedlock children I think I would go for merrybegot! I like that one! ;)
Love Stan's little list!
-
I do like the way the forum drifts off considering the 18th century with 20th/21st century eyes.
I would suggest the original posting is looked at again, and consider what the register is actually stating.
In Scotland at that time a couple could marry simply by habit and repute.
I.E. If they considered they were married and they lived together as if married then they were legally married.
This couple for whatever reasons they had did not consider they were married, hence the comment.
The question is why did the couple not consider themselves married?
Cheers
Guy
-
Thanks Guy, I had been considering posting along the same lines.... Obviously the children's parents had not entered into any of these Scottish forms of marriage:
1.Irregular marriage by declaration de presenti—Declaring in the presence of two witnesses that one takes someone as one's wife or husband.
2.Irregular marriage conditional on consummation.
3.Marriage contracted by correspondence.
4.Irregular marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute
Cheers, JM
-
You make an excellent point Guy!
It is very hard to think ourselves back to those morés (?sp - well, that is how it is pronounced anyhow!! ;)) isn't it!
JM - I think my daughter and partner fall into category 4!
Wiggy
-
Wiggy,
I have some Scottish heritage, on both my main lines... I was just trying to find the way to express myself, and Wow, along came Guy ... a very knowledgeable RChatter...
Mind you, did you notice that we are all understanding marriage to be between a male and a female... regardless of its irregularity or otherwise, so in at least one respect we are looking with 18th century eyes ...
Cheers, JM
-
Very hard to make babies any other way JM!! :P :P specially in them thar days!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Wiggy
-
Exactly.
In NSW today, this very day, there were elections for both our houses of Parliament. Sprukers hand out "how to vote cards" as electors approach the polling places (often local school halls etc)...
I overheard one of our neighbours very clearly TELLING the spruker that NO, our neighbour did not want THEIR how to vote card, because they were after changing the marriage laws. Our neighbour said " Advocating civil unions is fine, you can do want you want with civil law, but don't ram your views onto OUR marriage laws". The spruker got so distracted he forgot to hand out his cards and wasted so much time arguing and arguing and arguing. We got home, I thought about posting on this thread and just could not find the "right words", then our neighbour called past SEVERAL HOURS later, very pleased with himself ... He had delayed all those how to vote cards being distributed ... His wife just raised her eyebrows and we all had a cuppa.
Now that's democracy in action in NSW in the 21st Century ...
Cheers, JM
-
Ummm . . . . . but . . .
We were talking on this thread about babies being born out of wedlock, by whatever name - so I supposed the parents would have had to be one of either sex! ;)
- that was where I was coming from!! ::) ;D
AND . . . . I am glad to see that the vicars/ministers/priests weren't holding it against the children for the condition of their parents union!! :D :D Neither they should!
Wiggy
-
A local register (1740s to 1780s) rarely uses any term for an illegitimate child (the occasional base born) but most occurences of births to single women have 'the reputed father xxx xxxx'. Much more useful.
-
I think perhaps "reputed" father should be on many more records ... Shhhhhhh .... sometimes I have found fathers absent for lengthy stints eg as garrison forces in penal colony of NSW and yet their lawful wife back in England has several children sometimes as young as 3 months all ready for him when he finally returns...
Cheers, JM
-
She was obviously a kangaroo in another life JM! ;)
(for those who don't know - kangaroos have the ability to save their next young until the season is right!)
Wiggy ;)
-
Yes, those pouches can be very handy in extreme weather conditions !
-
A local register (1740s to 1780s) rarely uses any term for an illegitimate child (the occasional base born) but most occurences of births to single women have 'the reputed father xxx xxxx'. Much more useful.
Indeed, the possible baptism of my 2XGGF has the surname crossed through but readable, reputed father would be much more helpful.
-
Aha a kangaroo!!
That would explain my ancestor who had a child 3 years after her husband died and put his name on the birth certificate. ;)
-
Aha a kangaroo!!
That would explain my ancestor who had a child 3 years after her husband died and put his name on the birth certificate. ;)
Yep that will be correct then!!! ;D ;D
-
I wish my great grandmother had bothered to put my grandfather's father on his birth certificate,that's presuming she knew his name of course ;D
George.
-
Better than serial killers!
;D ;D ;D
What a wonderful piece of history! I believe the law (and please anyway correct me on this if I am wrong) was that a child was considered illegitimate if it was conceived before marriage, even if the parents were married at the time of the birth, up until the early 1960s.
I've spotted a few baptism records that state 'illegitimate' but this has to be the best ever!
The only interesting baptism record I have is for my g grandmother who converted from Hinduism to Catholicism - her baptism record states her parents were 'heathens' and 'from heathenism' is entered in the comments column. Wonderful stuff!
-
Aha a kangaroo!!
That would explain my ancestor who had a child 3 years after her husband died and put his name on the birth certificate. ;)
I've 2 like that, born 2 and 3years respectively after the "father" was transported.
-
I'm still pondering on Guy's comment about why they didn't consider themselves as married.Three years between births and they are still not considered as man and wife ???
George.
-
I believe the law (and please anyway correct me on this if I am wrong) was that a child was considered illegitimate if it was conceived before marriage, even if the parents were married at the time of the birth, up until the early 1960s.
A child of a marriage cannot be illegitimate or a bastard.
As the latin phrase has it:Mater semper certa est, pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant
"The mother is always known; the father is the one whom the marriage points out"; in other words, fatherhood, paternity, is established by marriage; that is, the legal presumption is that a child born to a married woman is a child of her husband, even if that is not actually the case.
Stan
-
A child of a marriage cannot be illegitimate or a bastard.
As the latin phrase has it:Mater semper certa est, pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant
"The mother is always known; the father is the one whom the marriage points out"; in other words, fatherhood, paternity, is established by marriage; that is, the legal presumption is that a child born to a married woman is a child of her husband, even if that is not actually the case.
Stan
Rats. I've been getting my sister with that one for years! ;D
-
Those of you who have done Scottish research will already know this, but n the "old days" in Scotland, the Kirk Elders would compear "fornicators" to appear before the Kirk Session to be charged with the sin of ante-nupital fornication. They would then have to sit on the "Cutty Stool" in front of the congregation to be "rebuked" and to declare their sins and and to show repentence - usually for three consecutive Sundays. And the newly married couples were also watched carefully! (as were everyone who "took a drink of the evil alcohol, cursed - especially bad on a Sunday, etc etc)or if a baby was produced inside 9 months of the marriage - they were also hauled in! The Kirk Elders were the the moral watchguards! They would sneak around the villages spying! And some of them didn't have very good morals themselves.
I have 3 like that! I was telling my nephew about how influential the Church elders were then, the "Moral Watchguard". He was then aged around 25 or 26) he was very interested. I told him about several of his ancestors being charged with Ante-Nuptial fornication, and he said "What's that?" I laughed and said "pre-marital sex - you young bucks didn't invent it you know!" ;D
Every now and again I get an email from him asking if I have any more spicey Kirk Session Records to send him. LOL
Jeanne
-
She was obviously a kangaroo in another life JM! ;)
(for those who don't know - kangaroos have the ability to save their next young until the season is right!)
Wiggy ;)
Aha a kangaroo!!
That would explain my ancestor who had a child 3 years after her husband died and put his name on the birth certificate. ;)
Lots of kangas in my family too ;D ;D ;D
Alison
-
What a great thread!
I just discovered some of mine (in Dundee) who married less than a month before their baby was born. Sadly, the mother survived the birth by only a couple of hours.
But it got me thinking about customs wherein the bride was expected to be expecting, so to speak. Seems to have been quite common in Scotland. And I thought of three good reasons for the bride to be proven fertile before marriage:
Continuation of the family name
Continuation of the family property, if any
Insurance against old age or illness, when the children would care for their parents
Anybody know any other reasons?
Cheers,
China
-
Those of you who have done Scottish research will already know this, but n the "old days" in Scotland, the Kirk Elders would compear "fornicators" to appear before the Kirk Session to be charged with the sin of ante-nupital fornication. They would then have to sit on the "Cutty Stool" in front of the congregation to be "rebuked" and to declare their sins and and to show repentence - usually for three consecutive Sundays. And the newly married couples were also watched carefully! (as were everyone who "took a drink of the evil alcohol, cursed - especially bad on a Sunday, etc etc)or if a baby was produced inside 9 months of the marriage - they were also hauled in! The Kirk Elders were the the moral watchguards! They would sneak around the villages spying! And some of them didn't have very good morals themselves.
I have 3 like that! I was telling my nephew about how influential the Church elders were then, the "Moral Watchguard". He was then aged around 25 or 26) he was very interested. I told him about several of his ancestors being charged with Ante-Nuptial fornication, and he said "What's that?" I laughed and said "pre-marital sex - you young bucks didn't invent it you know!" ;D
Every now and again I get an email from him asking if I have any more spicey Kirk Session Records to send him. LOL
Jeanne
I read that the last time this happened in Scotland was in 1978 - yup - you read that date correctly! It was on either the Isle of Harris or Lewis.
I had a fair number of the 'roos in my family too, but they mostly came from my lowland branches, not my Highlanders. :) :) :)
-
:) Robbie Burns was there as well!! He called it the "Creepie Chair"
On this day in 1786 twenty-seven-year-old Robert Burns served his third and last public penance for having "ante-nuptial fornication" with his eventual wife, Jean Armour. Burns had privately acknowledged his behavior and legally bound himself to Jean by giving an oral and written promise of marriage, but her parents would have none of it. They destroyed his note and made their daughter write one of her own to the church fathers, admitting pregnancy and naming Burns. The "fornication police," as Burns called them, were empowered to impose both a fine and a public rebuke -- though in his case Burns was allowed to stand in his usual pew rather than sit on the penitential stool or, again in Burns parlance, "the Creepie Chair." ;)
Jeanne
-
So if the grandparent/s of the two wee Scots in the image at the OP did NOT want to recognise their own grandchilren then they simply could whisper to the clergy that f word and the clergy could scribe away safe in the knowledge that RChatters would discourse upon his then PC wording ........ Perhaps therein lies the the impediment to finding a lawful mc ..... The conspiring Grandparent ...
-
It was not just Scotland, an Order of Penance was imposed in England, see http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,426549.msg2915824.html#msg2915824
Stan
-
I believe the law (and please anyway correct me on this if I am wrong) was that a child was considered illegitimate if it was conceived before marriage, even if the parents were married at the time of the birth, up until the early 1960s.
A child of a marriage cannot be illegitimate or a bastard.
As the latin phrase has it:Mater semper certa est, pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant
"The mother is always known; the father is the one whom the marriage points out"; in other words, fatherhood, paternity, is established by marriage; that is, the legal presumption is that a child born to a married woman is a child of her husband, even if that is not actually the case.
Stan
Not so the husband has the option to show that he could not be the father (for instance he could have been overseas for a year, or he could be sterile).
The law allows for those and similar exceptions.
Cheers
Guy
-
Told by a Welsh comedian - I forget who.
Two ladies in the village store, discussing the weather :-
First lady: Have you heard about Megan Pugh - she's getting married.
Second Lady: No - is she pregnant.
First Lady: No.
Second Lady: Well there's posh for you.
-
;D ;D
Port Out Starboard Home and no apparent ante nuptial activity either ... I heard on the grapevine that Megan Pugh was in fact Megan Prude ...
Seriously though, There's many apparently bigamous relationships in the early British settlements in New South Wales, caused no doubt by a General Order of Governor Lachlan Macquarie, as he sought to
"..... reprobate and check .... persons of different Sexes cohabiting and living together ... unsanctioned by the legal ties .... , immoral and illicit Intercourse (as might have been expected) not only highly injurious to the Interests of the Society at large, but often times attended also with grievous Calamity to the Parties themselves, and the innocent Offspring of their Misconducts ..... "
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/627934
24 February 1810 Sydney Gazette
Cheers, JM (Gov Macquarie was a Scot, his MI "Father of Australia" 1762-1824 and NSW was a penal colony within the British Empire)
-
Some further research for RChatters
(Gleaned from the digitised newspapers in Australia) In this 1825 cutting, there is reference to the philosophic the moral Paley,and a book that Paley penned. The heading "fornication" is mentioned, and the edition etc ... Vol 1, pp 221, 21st Edin Edition.
So as it was in its 21st Edinburgh edition before 1825, it could well be a book published in mid 1700's ... which is when these wee Scottish babies were baptised.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2183933
14 April 1825 Sydney Gazette
AND ALSO (some further thoughts)
Those conspiring Grandparents may well have chosen to NOT recognise the marriage of the parents of those 2 wee Scottish babies...
Have you determined the names of those grandparents ... were either couple sufficiently funded to seek to ignore (choosing not to recognise) a marriage of one of their own issue
Have you considered if the parents of those 2 babies ... did either of them have a sibling who may have sought to whisper to the clergy so that sibling could position themselves and their issue to gain a family inheritance ..
Did either of those parents suffer the Creepie Chair
Did either of those parents have reading skills ... if not then perhaps they did not ever discover what was recorded against those baptismal records ... :) ... I am sure they would have been severely addressed by the Clergy, but if they were not able to read, then here's some proof that the adage "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"
EDIT TO NOTE ATTACHMENT
Cheers, JM
-
Sorry - hit the wrong button, wasn't finished. See next post
-
Yes majm - and that possible lack of reading skills could also mean no no-one (except future genealogists perhaps ;D , would read the remarks or "labels" made by whoever recorded the births, just as in Stan's list!
This was it;
From a Parish Baptism register
- natural child of Mary X
- base born child of Mary X
- illegitimate child of Mary X
- another of Mary X's bastards
The parish priest/clerk was obviously getting a bit fed up.
Jeanne
-
I just love Stan's list!!
Have copied it and sent it to some clerical friends of mine - they love it too!!
Wiggy
-
I have a cousin who is a retired Rev'd. He assures me that "reputed" father was perhaps the least offensive expression used in parish records to which he entered BDM events that he conducted, some of those registers dated from early NSW settlement.
Cheers, JM
-
Those of you who have done Scottish research will already know this, but n the "old days" in Scotland, the Kirk Elders would compear "fornicators" to appear before the Kirk Session to be charged with the sin of ante-nupital fornication.
...................................
Every now and again I get an email from him asking if I have any more spicey Kirk Session Records to send him. LOL
A few years ago I came across a case in the Tillicoultry Kirk Session, unrelated to my wife's ancestors (for once), so I only read it out of prurience and didn't take notes. A couple were accused of fornication and the girl's sister was called as a witness. She knew the man visited but was not sure whether "guilt was committed" in spite of the fact that they were all in the same bed at the time.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I love Kirk Session records!! They tell it how it is - at least how it's seen through the eyes of the Holy Willies!! ;D ;D
Daffing's OK - but no houghmagandie!! Especially threesomes I would think!! :o ;D
Jeanne
-
Those of you who have done Scottish research will already know this, but n the "old days" in Scotland, the Kirk Elders would compear "fornicators" to appear before the Kirk Session to be charged with the sin of ante-nupital fornication.
...................................
Every now and again I get an email from him asking if I have any more spicey Kirk Session Records to send him. LOL
A few years ago I came across a case in the Tillicoultry Kirk Session, unrelated to my wife's ancestors (for once), so I only read it out of prurience and didn't take notes. A couple were accused of fornication and the girl's sister was called as a witness. She knew the man visited but was not sure whether "guilt was committed" in spite of the fact that they were all in the same bed at the time.
Well of course .... there was no candle burning to shed any light for witness to see anything and the witness had her eyes closed so she could get to sleep and she was on the OTHER side of the bed and she was unsure of the meaning of that big word they questioned her about and she was not yet being courted herself personally ...
-
A few years ago I came across a case in the Tillicoultry Kirk Session, unrelated to my wife's ancestors (for once), so I only read it out of prurience and didn't take notes. A couple were accused of fornication and the girl's sister was called as a witness. She knew the man visited but was not sure whether "guilt was committed" in spite of the fact that they were all in the same bed at the time.
Now, that was one very sound sleeper or a happy participant in a threesome! ;) ;) ;) ;)
Or there is mjm's explanation - a darn good one at that!! ;D ;D ;D
-
:) majm - ;D You're so funny!!
Jeanne ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
;D You have to read Holy Willie's Prayer - written by Robbie Burns!! It's really funny!
http://www.robertburns.org.uk/Assets/Poems_Songs/holy_willie.htm
-
Thanks, I put it down to the genes that came my way ...
There's a touch of Orange and of Green from the Irish, and then there's a Spanish Moor, and there's my convict who was sentenced to death(Scottish female arsonist) but was transported instead, because the Mad King agreed that she was ïmbecile of the mind and there's my g g g grandfather (Wesleyan lay preacher, five times married ... some bigamously) and my lass from White Russia who grew up in Hong Kong, and my Cornish lot who refused to speak English, and not to forget the ones who fled to England from France, or ....
Did you hear about the newly wed Irish couple who sat up all night waiting for their sexual relations to arrive.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Well done! majm! Love your Irish newlyweds!!
You're a genetic wonder!!!
Jeanne
-
Well I do recall a time when a very rude man used a very rude word and told me to Go Back Where You Came From ... and I did chuckle quietly trying to decide where I should head off to.
However, from this newspaper cutting you can see that news of a Minister of the Scotch Church who made admissions as to his conduct ... well that news spread around the globe.... This is a report in an Australian newspaper in 1842 ... they got the information from another newspaper
6 August 1842 Sydney Morning Herald http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/12422288
DEPOSITION OF A MINISTER OF THE SCOTCH CHURCH.-At the meeting of the Edinburgh Presbytery last Wednesday, the clerk, Dr. Gilchrist, read a letter from Mr. Hay, of the Dean Church, addressed to the Moderator, making the acknowledgment that he had been guilty of the sin of fornication .....
and as to what happened next well is in that cutting.
-
Well yes - quite a choice you have there!! ;)
Mr. Hay sounds like another "Holy Willie"
Jeanne
-
The University of Nottingham has catalogued a set of Presentment bonds (reports by the church wardens to the archdeacon) spanning much of the 1600s. I'll merely offer one sample (Mansfield, 1598 or 1599, AN/PB/292/9/26)
Wyllyam Pecke for having carnal knowledge of his wife Elizabeth Leevesley before marriage; Robert Parker for the like with Dorothie Ludlame his wife (the common fame is that this Dorothie committed fornication within this twelvemonth with one Thomas, an ostler at the Swan, and also with one Robert Baker, an ostler at Robert Hawlls; and so both these men have braggingly confessed before divers people); Wylliam Morfet for fornication with Agnes Willgouse; Frances Sherston for carnal knowledge with Alice Stones his wife, before marriage; Wyllyam Barloe for not coming to church for twelve months, and yet every day at one alehouse or another; Anne Langeforthe for fornication with [no name given]; Richard Hybbert and his wife for 'bawdry', because on Holy Rood day last one Jo. Bawmeforthe and Loyes' daughter (both well known to all the house, she having another husband and he another wife), lay there all that night together as man and wife, and all the next night also in one bed; the first night Richard Hibbert was not at home but the second he was.
There are many many more.
-
majm,as regarding the two wee Scots babies.I can only find any further information on the second Alexander (my 5xG grandfather)the first Henrietta I can find no information on,possibly she didn't survive and the fornicating parents seem to disappear.Alexander does grow up and marry in Linlithgow.His first two children were twin girls one of whom he named Henrietta.At his marriage there is only a mention of the bride's father.
George.
-
John nxyz - I just love that clip!!
What a brilliant record of the doings of the place!!
-
A child of a marriage cannot be illegitimate or a bastard.
As the latin phrase has it:Mater semper certa est, pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant
"The mother is always known; the father is the one whom the marriage points out"; in other words, fatherhood, paternity, is established by marriage; that is, the legal presumption is that a child born to a married woman is a child of her husband, even if that is not actually the case.
Stan
Not so the husband has the option to show that he could not be the father (for instance he could have been overseas for a year, or he could be sterile).
The law allows for those and similar exceptions.
A lady in my husbands tree registered five children at her local register office all with her husbands (her married) surname...he'd been long gone btw. She then hops accross to a neighbouring register office, presumably with the father of the said children and registered them all again with their true fathers surname.
Getting back to baptisms, I have a couple in Sussex who get married and baptise their baby on the same day!
Again in Sussex my 3x g grandparents had 11 children born out of wedlock, it caused the children no end of problems they did not know which surname to use and turn up in records under either or both surnames ::)
-
Saved two trips to the church then didn't they!! ;D ;D
-
Saved two trips to the church then didn't they!! ;D ;D
I wonder if the vicar gave them a discount ;D !
I still can't fathom why my 3x greats never married...too busy fornicating to get around to it I suppose ;D ;D ;D
-
Just ahead of their time Suey :)
-
Saved two trips to the church then didn't they!! ;D ;D
I wonder if the vicar gave them a discount ;D !
I still can't fathom why my 3x greats never married...too busy fornicating to get around to it I suppose ;D ;D ;D
*Sigh!* I have the opposite problem; - my gt grandma married her second husband in Queensland in 1911 ... but then in 1965/6, on the eve of their move into a nursing home, and only shortly before they died within a month of each other, ... they got married again, in NSW! My mother says no-one in the family was aware of the first marriage.
Maybe they thought the first marriage license had expired? ::)
-
Hi Deb,I have something similar with two of mine.I can find no record of what they claim was their first marriage and can only conclude it was an irregular marriage.However 40 years later and knowing she was dying they go through a church ceremony in Edinburgh.
George.
-
Hi Deb,
Perhaps it was cheaper (and quicker) to get a new cert than to get a certified copy from BDM in Qld ... or perhaps the registration was not found on an initial search and the OAC needed the bit of paper because of their local bylaw no. 28796 (substitute any number that suits).
But I gather each spoke I will at the appropriate places
JM
-
;D Yes, both times! Don't know what the kerfuffle would have been - clueless self managed to find the QLD marriage thingy without too much trouble ... although they would have been chasing it up a fair while back, and things were all on paper, in files, in filing cabinets, then.
However, my Mum insists they got married in '65/66 "to make it legal". ???
-
Hi Deb,
I gather you have both of those m.c. What was illegal about the first one .... cause I actually think that #2 could be lawfully redundant .... otherwise err.... they were on a very long pre-honeymoon ....
Cheers, JM
-
I had an ancestor who had thirteen chidren - they only got married the year before the mother died. many prople in the remote areas of aus didn't have anyone to marry them before the babies started arriving - the parents would get married and then baptise the children on the same day! A convict forfather was denied permission to marry as punishment for fornicating two children into existence so he had a third to prove the point. So there is nothing new under the Southern Cross!
Convictlass
-
Hi JM,
Cousin has a copy of the first one (I think via a transcription agent), I've got the second one - both apparently quite legal :-\
Weird, innit?
Deb
-
Deb,
I wasn't aware that QLD offered transcriptions .... BUT I can be mistooken.
I think it is still a statute offence to marry IF you are already married, thus the NSW one could be considered redundant (as opposed to bigamous).
Have you checked the online index for QLD (marriages to 1929 I think)
https://www.bdm.qld.gov.au/IndexSearch/BirIndexQry.m
Cheers, JM
-
I had an ancestor who had thirteen chidren - they only got married the year before the mother died. many prople in the remote areas of aus didn't have anyone to marry them before the babies started arriving - the parents would get married and then baptise the children on the same day! A convict forfather was denied permission to marry as punishment for fornicating two children into existence so he had a third to prove the point. So there is nothing new under the Southern Cross!
Convictlass
Yes, although there were "roving" clergy even in the early 1800's ... Sometimes they overlooked forwarding their entries to the Sydney C of E clergy at St Phillips. Gov Macquarie in 1810 established in a series of General Orders what he expected to be done, but alas many clergy overlooked completing the requirement. Sometimes you can find the diary of those 'roving' clergy at NSW State Records ... Gov Macquarie's rules were still the basis for recording baptisms, marriages and burials until civil registration commenced from the 1850's ... AND the recording even within the civil system is very hit and miss until after WWI
So of course some denominations simply ignored the rules of the Established Church and did not co-operate with the civil rules either ...
Cheers, JM
-
Legal technicalities aside ... I still suspect they thought the first one had expired! ;D
-
Legal technicalities aside ... I still suspect they thought the first one had expired! ;D
They may have, ;D but surely the licenced person performing the NSW marriage should have made enquiries .... That was certainly a function that the 19thC clergy carried out diligently ... so many who sought permission to marry were denied the opportunity after the Clergy made enquiries .... surely that is still part of the licencing functions for both clergy and civil celebrants even today?
Although .... perhaps .... the NSW one was to make sure .... I'm thinking of say drivers licence ... as I recall, these were not necessarily recognised in each state in the 1960's ...
Were they shown as bachelor/spinster on the NSW one ... Did they get their parent's names right ! Oh Deb, I am absolutely amazed ... It must be a good talking point within the cousins with keen family history interests.
Mind you, there was much in the NSW papers even in 1952 re Anthony Eden's re-marriage
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/29439321 SMH 20 August 1952
Or this one ... http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/18054189 19 December 1947 SMH discussing the UK Lord Chancellor's pronouncements in the House of Lords re a divorce matter. (Australia was in 1947 still a dominion of Britain)
Cheers, JM
-
Australia was still subject to inference from the UK in the 1970s. Remember the dismissal of Whitlam's government.